‘Generals having grand time’ testing weapons as Trump tries to placate critics
America’s top military commanders at the Pentagon are having a grand time now, as Trump tries to win them over with a blank check to test all the weapons they have wanted, but been unable, to use in the past, Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition told RT.
On Thursday, the US military dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever used on Afghanistan.
The so-called ‘mother of all bombs’, which is as tall as a three-story building and has a colossal weight, can reap destruction within a 1.5-kilometer (1-mile) radius.
RT: US Senator Lindsey Graham just wrote on Twitter that Thursday’s “super bomb” sends a message to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and “other enemies.” What other enemies could he mean?
Brian Becker: He means DPRK, he means North Korea. We have right now mounting tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier is going there. The US has contingency plans of all types for military actions against North Korea. I don’t think this bomb will actually scare North Korea, but it should be understood to be a demonstration weapon. It’s never been used before in combat. This was the first time.
Devastating capabilities of mega-bomb raise questions over official death toll https://t.co/bBwTGobYWopic.twitter.com/yw5VTzA5ET
— RT (@RT_com) 14 апреля 2017 г.
It happened right after Trump launched 59 cruise missiles during his dinner with the Chinese President against Syria, right after the US carried out military strikes in Syria and in Iraq, as the US is mounting military pressure on North Korea. It is a shock and awe weapon.
It’s a 21,000-pound bomb. It kills all living things within the radius of a mile. That is the same radius for the Hiroshima bomb and Nagasaki bomb, even though they are much greater in terms of their power and their blast by many, many magnitudes. Nonetheless it’s a weapon of mass destruction. The US government and Trump used it as demonstration to anyone who defies US dictates.
‘Right weapon for right target’: Top US commander defends use of #MOABhttps://t.co/s7uOzelIHWpic.twitter.com/9CR1IMmaS0
— RT (@RT_com) 14 апреля 2017 г.
RT: Do you see any significance of the timing of the use of this weapon?
BB: Yes, the timing comes, of course, as the US is escalating its combat in Syria, as it is trying to become the dominant power in the eastern part of Syria, around Raqqa. It hopes to create a US sphere of influence there. It hopes to take over again Mosul. But again, the timing must be seen in a context of the mounting tension on the Korean Peninsula. That is the most militarized, the most dangerous part of the planet right now.
Test aimed to evaluate bomb’s ‘non-nuclear functions’ - US National Nuclear Security Adm. https://t.co/2mr5zQlnOWpic.twitter.com/KtbaTvdo8o
— RT (@RT_com) 14 апреля 2017 г.
RT: Just a day after the use of this so-called ‘mother of all bombs’ the US army released a statement saying that, a month ago, they had successfully tested a weapon called an inert nuclear gravity bomb. Why all this talk, and what some are calling grandstanding about military weaponry?
BB: It is very important to understand that Trump, as part of his effort to placate or mute domestic criticism and to win over his critics, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, CNN, and the Democrats in Congress, has given a blank check to the Pentagon, to the generals. They are having a grand time right now. They are testing and checking out all the weapons that they wanted to test in the past – like the ‘mother of all bombs’, a 21,000-pound bomb. They have never been able to do it before. Now they are doing it because they have a blank check. What we see happening in Washington is essentially a military government. The military industrial complex incentivizes tension; it incentivizes war. When weapons are used – whether they are cruise missiles, or these ‘mothers of all bombs’ – they must be replaced. Again, that is very good for business.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.