• Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    With regular bombs targeting military factories and logistical hubs at night? No, because those are military targets and there was minimal risk to civilians. Firebombing residential areas? Absolutely.

    The worst part is, killing shittons of civilians isn’t even useful. When Germany shifted bombing from airfields and military targets to terror-bombing london, they gave the airfields and factories breathing room to rebuild the RAF and eventually win the battle of Britain. Murdering 20% of the population of Korea north of the 38th didn’t allow the US to push up, poisoning the center of vietnam to cause a famine and sending B-52s to carpet bomb the north did nothing to break the Vietnamese resistance. Bombing hospitals and weddings in Afghanistan didn’t make the Afghan people decide to stop resisting.

    • RalfWausE_der_zwote@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      With regular bombs targeting military factories and logistical hubs at night? No, because those are military targets and there was minimal risk to civilians.

      I bet - if she was still around - my grandma would have a good laugh at the “minimal risk” part…

      But besides that: Bombing a parade where high ranking military personal and valuable military hardware is present is then surely ok - especially if you consider how much more precisely targeted a drone strike is compared to bombing raids in WWII