1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 8 points 3 months ago

Strategic bombing has never been successful by itself in the history of warfare. In every single occurrence dropping bombs with the goal of murdering people and destroying their communities just pisses them off. This is always been true.

Giulio Douhet, its inventor, was a World War I Italian General. I don't know if I need to say more than that to show you why it was a poor strategy.

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 8 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    The only time in history that bombing civilians actually caused a country to capitulate was after nuking Japan in WW2, and even there it was the emperor who decided to give up. Not the population. There's no historical reason at all for the US to assume that bombing Iran's citizens is going to make them turn on their government. Yet they keep murdering civilians. The only explanation left is that there is no underlying strategy, and they just want to murder civilians.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Even Japan isn't a great example. The fire bombings destroyed way more cities and slaughtered way more people but those weren't enough. The nukes coincided with a crippling blockade, an incipient land invasion, and most important of all Russia joining in.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/worldnews@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Just hit her until she gives in.

    Kegsbreath, probably.

  • source