It is interesting that CNN focuses on the body count.
It does gives proof to the old adage "If it bleeds it leads' but my, how 'Southeast Asia 1965' of them.
What's more important: Were the right terrorists killed. This is pretty much a repeat of what I posted at F-16.net
Q: Why use B-2s?
A: So ISIS never saw us coming.
Q: Why 2 B-2s to drop 38 weapons when 1 can carry 80 500lb JDAMs?
A: To bomb both locations at the same time, like probably down to the last second unless they wanted to cause a response in one first by bombing the other. And more than 38-40 would have probably been overkill.
Q: Was this cost-effective?
A: Aside from killing the terrorists who would have carried out attacks in Europe and probably elsewhere now and later (CNN and their 'militants'....F*! both.) it probably:
a. flattened their training facilities, weapons building capability and stockpile and the trainers of future terrorists,
b. it will also make the survivors look up in the sky at night and loose their beauty sleep.The immediate and later costs of letting any attacks happen probably far outweighed the cost of flying 2 B-2s and expending a few bombs.
There are some less obvious positives about this, given the 'international' interest in the region, but I will not air them here.
Now expect some slacker in the media to use the 'kitchen sink' definition of $/FH to rail against the strike as 'wasteful' in 5...4...3...2...