catapult magazine

The U.S. just dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in existence in Florida somewhere. From an AP report: “Defense officials suggested the test was a message to Iraq ahead of a possible war about the might of the U.S. military”.
Does this seem to be sophomoric military posturing? Isn’t this an American rehash of the flexing the Soviets and Chinese engaged in during the cold war?
“It did what it was supposed to do” said a Defense Department official. What was that? Blow up alligators? Is that why it was developed?
This bothers me. More than I thought it would. Maybe more than it should.

here’s the BBC story, with pictures, about the test:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2842619.stm

i’m with you, norb. the timing of the test was certainly “convenient.”

Development for this bomb started a year ago or more. So they tested it now. I guess why not test it now, when it could most likely be needed in a war against Iraq? It would make sense for it to be a part of psychological warfare. I guess I’d rather they bombed some testing ground in our own country to “flex muscles” rather than drop it on another country first. If you really don’t understand the timing of this event and the principles behind it, check out “The Art of War” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

As for the question as to why it was even developed, well, you have to consider what your expectations of the federal government are. I think the federal government has only a few basic functions, one of them being national defense. I’d expect them to be working on bombs, etc. to keep furthering our nation’s ability to defend itself … because I don’t think we’re going to see privately-funded armies springing up anytime soon.

of course i understand the timing of the test. but, as norb pointed out, it seems a bit sophomoric. like the iraqi government needs to be reminded that we can obliterate their country. speaking of, here’s another interesting article from the BBC comparing iraqi and US military assets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2839761.stm

i agree with you, anne, that part of the government’s responsibility is national defense. it’s just really strange to think of our own military dropping bombs on florida. i mean, i suppose these things need to be tested somewhere, but it’s still weird.

I’m kind of hoping you mentioned “the Prince” in jest Anne. I’m hoping that our government isn’t willfully Machiavellian.

No, but there are some basic psychological principles at work in “The Prince” that hold pretty true, although “The Art of War” is much more applicable in this situation.

There are some basic psychological principals in Mein Kampf that may hold pretty true as well.
Either way, I’ll agree that there is a valid comparison that may be in the U.S.‘s best interest.
I don’t have to agree with it and be happy about it though.
I need to try Art of War again.

There are a lot of psychological principles in Mein Kampf that definitely worked for a time and probably still would under the right conditions and in the right country. (Saying that doesn’t make me a Nazi. I’m merely acknowledging that history shows us that Hitler was, for a time, very successful [by his standards – to his delight and our disgust]. I think it’s ignorant to not look at history’s leaders – good and bad – and dissect what made them so powerful. I often wonder what great things Hitler might have accomplished had he been a good man with good, moral and ethical ideas … he was a very charismatic person people LIKED, wasn’t he?).

too true Annie.
The biggest villains in history have been “big” for a reason.

I still don’t like the MOAB thing.
(I had to throw that in there for good measure)

What good is a really really big bomb in Iraq? Aren’t the smaller guided ones more important? Aren’t we trying to avoid civilian casualties?

I bought "Art of War: by Sun Tzu but haven’t read it yet and probably won’t. It’s interesting that this morning in my devotionals I was reading in 2 Kings about how Sennacherib, king of Assyria, sent his commander to taunt Hezekiah at Jerusalem. Assyria had already conquered Israel and brought them into captivity. Now they were coming for Judah.

They shouted a long message to Hezekiah’s servants about how their God hadn’t protected them in Israel, so why would he protect them now? Hezekiah’s servants were upset that the Assyrians were talking in Hebrew and all the people in the city could hear their intimidating remarks. They asked them to speak in Aramaic (the language of the diplomats) so the people wouldn’t understand them. But they had a specific phychological mission.

To make a long story short, Hezekiah prayed, an angel of the Lord came and killed 185,000 Assyrians, and the rest went back because other matters came up to distract them.