Strategic bombing, y/n?

So i heard the most monkeying around you can do in wars is bombing the civvies because your ape brain wants to see dead bad guys regardless them being military or no.
Supposedly this is super bad since civvies getting their shit pushed in is the best way to boost the morale of the nation, resulting in more willing conscripts and people supporting the war. We've seen this in Ukraine where even the hippies there are supporting the war and picking up arms after their family and friends got bombed by the vatniks.

Would you bomb civvies, PrepHole? Is strategic bombing ever justified?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    strategic bombing worked when it targeted production lines for a total, attrition warfare like ww2.

    it doesn't work if you are just trying to intimidate people or your enemies aren't dependent on their production output.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      strategic bombing in ww2 resulted in higher production numbers actually

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        did they catch and reuse the bombs?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          idk speer started using slave labor more or something

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What the Russians have been doing is terror bombing, it's piecemeal and accomplishes nothing.
    You want to destroy a city? It takes effort, and it needs to be done in totality. Most bombing efforts aren't going to damage the enemies morale, unless done in a soulcrushing manner, such as the air raids against Japan. But even the morale effects of that are questionable. The true goal of strategic bombing should be the elimination of a countries industry and means to wage war.
    Modern strategic bombing has been sidelined in favour of targeted strikes, something that wasn't possible in 1945. If you get to the point where you feel the need to level entire population centres, nukes are the go to.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      all terror bombings done in the past such as the air raids on berlin, endless bombings of north korea, indiscriminate bombings of vietcong cities, towns and villages etc were done in the name of """"strategic bombing"""""
      the term is synonymous at this point, expect loads of civvies dead when a military announces strategic bombings on a city

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        get fucked, commie. US was bombing military and industrial targets, terror bombing was neither of these and only happened during ww2 in japan.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >V.N. Razuvaev, compiled by the Ministry's Institute of Military History, cite a total of 1.2 million civilian casualties for North Korea, which include 282,000 killed in bombing raids and 796,000 fled to the South or missing.
          all strategic bombings kill civilians whether you like it or not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >V.N. Razuvaev
            lol
            >all strategic bombings kill civilians whether you like it or not.
            i never implied the opposite. i just stated that terror bombings and strikes on strategic infrastructure are different things.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >all strategic bombings kill civilians whether you like it or not.
            the injury to civilians is incidental to the military value of the target unless said civilians are "experts" as scientists or skilled tradesmen.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Israel bombed Lebanon once with an excuse to "destroy hezbollah positions" which resulted in the deaths of 5000 civilians from the bombings.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        North Korea is a perfect example of the kind of strategic bombing I mentioned.
        Bombing hamlets in Vietnam is not even remotely similar. Even the large scale bombings in Rolling Thunder were fairly limited. If the USAF wanted to torch Hanoi like they did Tokyo, they could have.

        Israel bombed Lebanon once with an excuse to "destroy hezbollah positions" which resulted in the deaths of 5000 civilians from the bombings.

        Source on those numbers? Preferably one that isn't the media wing of Hezbollah.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War
          96% palestians support russia in the ukraine war
          86% israelis support ukraine in the ukraine war

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gaza isn't Lebanon, learn geography dipshit.
            And the highest civilian casualty numbers given suggest 1500 at the most, which is probably high.
            Also what the fuck does Ukraine have to do with any of this?
            Why did you even make this thread?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Why did you even make this thread?
              figuring out the strategic advantage of killing civvies.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let me spell it out for you then.
                Killing civvies is only worth it if
                A. The dudes you killed are important
                B. You kill a fuckload of them.
                There you go.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                there's no strategic advantage to killing civilians unless they are directly responsible for the war effort in an actuve, fully mobilized attrition conflict like ww2, like tank factory workers, for example.

                you already received your answer but you didn't like it and so you're dragging the thread with useless drivel now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Attacking civilians is a strategy that empowers the enemy.
          If one wants to make use of civilian casualties in a war, provoke the enemy to kill your civvies for a sharp morale boost of your nation.

          hint: 9/11 might have something to do with this

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >russia killed finnish civvies in the winter war
            >pissed off finns fight to the last man in an act of revenge and drove stalin's bitch army back to petrograd

            >nazis killed russian civvies during ww2 by the shitloads
            >pissed off russians zerg rushed the nazis in an act of revenge, literally raped berlin and forced hitler to kill himself

            >japs killed mutt civvies during ww2 in pearl harbor
            >pissed off mutts nuked japs to anime kawaii land

            >mutts killed nork civvies during korean war
            >pissed off norks drove the mutts and soks down south until korea is split into two

            >mutts killed north viet civvies for fun during vietnam war
            >pissed off vietcongs pulled every guerilla war tactic in the book that traumatized mutt veterans for life and winning the war.

            right now

            >russians killed Ukie civvies, bombing ukie schools and hospitals
            >pissed off ukies ????????

            Never fuck with civvies.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Mutts killed infinity jap civilians
              >???
              >They surrender
              It works if you kill them hard enough

              Also the Norks didn't do shit to drive America back, that was virtually all China. North Korea got buck broken harder than Japan.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Jap military surrendered first before the jap civvies did
                68% of the jap populace still support the war when the nukes drop
                Hirohito gave in, not his people.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Japan was already on the verge of surrendering, they were just in the process of bargaining really. The nukes and firebombings convinced the Japanese command that they actually maybe couldn't bleed the US to a ceasefire before it got surrounded and starved to death through the targeting of its industry and food.
                You'd be right if Russia could use NOOKS to wipe out millions at a time and Ukraine was on its own, but they can't, and it isn't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they were just in the process of bargaining
                war *is* the process of bargaining, or have you never read clausewitz?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even that was mostly the US retreating and reorganizing because a certain narcissistic idiot did not properly prepare for Chinese entry into the war. Chinese were dying at a rate of worse than 10 for every 1 American.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              wow, you managed to get every described war wrong, everu single one. impressive.

              the conclusion is mostly correct, though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                morale is important.
                if youre in a military, which of these would make you fight harder?

                being told to fight for your country, freedom, your meager monthly pay, your commanders told you, for your squad etc
                or
                fight because the enemy just bombed your house, killed your dog, destroyed your gaming rig and all the cool rare shit you've collected with your hard earned cash then an another bomb landed in another place, killing your loved ones that youll never see again and celebrate with.

                Morale.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Russians are targeting infrastructure and industrial capacity, your false narrative is laughable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        District heating and power generation for commieblock farms with nary an industrial plant in sight is not comparable to attempting to bomb tank factories, but you knew that and are just cruising for a rusing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The vast majority of their strikes have gone after civilian infrastructure with the sole purpose of causing suffering to the civilian population. Those attacks have cause disproportionate civilian casualties.
        The only way you can justify what Russia is doing is if you make the claim that they are waging total war. Which is fucking laughable and only makes them look even worse.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The vast majority of these "civilian" strikes have been the power grid with some railway assets too. All perfectly logical targets. Personally, I'd go after bridges as well, but that's just me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you personally are a dishonest gay that can only impotently pretend that your enemies are as low and underhanded as you are.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Your emotional response betrays you as an Eastern Euro butthurter. No wonder you keep pushing false narratives.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you are the laughingstock that's shiling for a country that's been reduced to an even bigger laughingstock and can only fail to strike civilians at this point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You are pretty butthurt though.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're the butthurt shill here

                hopefully you'll get conscripted and killed soon, assuming you're not some shitskin 3rd worlder

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no u
                Actually not the guy you were replying to originally, just a vigilant hater of bleeding heart gays shitting up the board with their polemics and making interesting military discussions impossible.

                Cry about the bombing of your city or country on your local FB or for updoots on Reddit, not here Slavmoron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yes, than you for your opinion mr totally-not-the-same-fucking-rusmoron-shill

                cope about russians being subhumans somewhere else

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Can't even type anymore
                Tears blurring your vision?

                >thread is about bombing civilians
                >why do you discuss how russia bombs civilians
                big think there, armatard. you've been very obvious with your identical insults lately.

                >Guy rightly points out that Russia is aiming for (their aim is shit) civillian infrastructure and not just randomly bombing homes out of hate for Ukranians
                >This doesn't fit the atrocity propaganda narrative
                >Emotional reply littered with insults instead of rebuttal
                >Gets pointed out
                >Continues tantrum
                >Additional butthurt fags like you show up

                Leave

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia is aiming for (their aim is shit) civillian infrastructure and not just randomly bombing homes
                that's exactly the same thing

                post more butthurt replies, vatmoron

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Judging by the videos we've seen, they're pretty accurate in hitting the power planta and transformer stations.
                In fact, if I was Ukrainian, I'd be more concerned about AA missiles hitting my building.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                well you only watch vatnik propaganda so that's irrelevant to the war effort.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No it isn't.
                I agree that it's wrong and I think the UN should step in at this point, but the attacks still have practical reasons behind them.
                Bring down morale, make logistics for the Ukranian army hard since flowing water, heat and electricity are required for operation and create further pressure for the Ukranian government to solve this humanitarian crisis.

                There is no order to just randomly murder Ukranian civillians out of pure demonic lust for blood.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it doesn't bring down morale, it doesn't make army logistics harder, it's there purely to spite Ukie civilians. same with shelling their cities like Kharkiv in the beginning of the war, entire streets were leveled.

                what could make logistics harder is targeting logistics hubs, communication and command centers, railway lines, etc. basically the things ukies have been striking in russia. these targets are protected, though, so all they have left is chasing after distant and unprotected civilian infrastructure.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't bring down morale, it doesn't make army logistics harder
                Absolutely wrong.
                >Kharkiv
                It is to be expected that second largest city of a nation at war is subjected to heavy combat when it's right at the border with the enemy.
                Were the Russians supposed to politely ask the Garrison to leave?
                It's ugly, it's part of a criminal invasion, but militarily it was within the realm of what is to expected in such a situation.

                I agree with the second paragraph. Russia is doing this out of desperation, duh.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Absolutely wrong.
                terror bombing brings down morale but also strengthens the resolve and drives up support, so it alone achieves nothing.
                logistics may be harder if they have to dedicate army resources towards this damage but it doesn't really impede the military itself. the fuel, trucks, comms are still there, military has generators and fuel storage, it's the civilians that suffer.
                US took lots of effort to not behave exactly like russia did in the recent wars. Instead of asking the enemy to leave they spent great money and lives just so they didn't make it more bloody than necessary. That's what's normally expected from modern militaries, in fact US was still widely criticized despite those efforts.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Leaving hundreds of thousands of civillians without power and water during Winter achieves nothing
                Maybe if your head of state is Mao or Stalin and doesn't give a fuck.
                An immense amount of money and material is needed to keep the cities alive.

                >Doesn't impede the military
                The fuel trucks are intended to resupply the units during redeployments, not to keep generators running. More fuel trucks, water trucks, more transport trucks for generators, lights and heaters, generator trucks to power larger facilities like railway stations, so that supplies can be delivered by more efficient means. The logistical footprint of your units increase immensely if they have to operate off grid.

                >Instead of asking the enemy to leave they spent great money and lives just so they didn't make it more bloody than necessary.
                It was the more practical solution. Simple as. Iraq still went to shit and gave birth to ISIS anyways.

                As I said, Putin is desperate. Bombing people back to the Dark Age is the only practical thing he can do at this point. If Russia had the expertise, money and material, they would have tried to do their own "Shock and Awe" I mean, they tried, and we saw what happened lol.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The fuel trucks are intended to resupply the units during redeployments, not to keep generators running. More fuel trucks, water trucks, more transport trucks for generators, lights and heaters, generator trucks to power larger facilities like railway stations, so that supplies can be delivered by more efficient means. The logistical footprint of your units increase immensely if they have to operate off grid.
                See how nobody replies to this? Because it kills their narrative about infrastructure attacks being useless.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't make army logistics harder
                Yeah, electricity is not needed anywhere in modern society. It doesn't power anything at all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's a good thing that the smallest possible generation unit is a megawatt thermal power plant in Lviv and not a field portable gas generator in the back of every lend lease Ford Raptor

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thinking wasting fuel resources on a million small generators instead of power plants is somehow beneficial

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not "beneficial", can you make one post without some obnoxious greentext strawman? It's irrelevant. Ukraine's industrial capacity and logistical train are not in Ukraine. Ukranian tanks are repaired in Poland, Ukranian arms come from the US. Ukranian gasoline is supplied by NATO as needed. Bombing random power plants pisses off civilians and does little else, which even Russia's state media acknowledges. It's not going to magically cripple their logistics, we'll just send more generators.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the logistical train is not Ukraine's, then the strain on it isn't Ukraine's either. What is so hard to understand?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you acknowledge that Russia is unable to apply significant pressure to Ukranian logistics by bombing power plants, in direct opposition to your original post, and NATO's effectively infinite logistical train cannot be severed by Russia.

                So why keep bombing power stations?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It means the one footing the bill will have to pay more and more. Not to mention not being able to fix everything as it's destroyed.
                So yes, Russia is able to apply significant strain to Ukrainian logistics for reasons already mentioned in the thread.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your plan is for Russia to get into a logistical pissing match against NATO, in which Russia can't strike the main NATO resupply hub right across the Polish border.

                The best part about this war is you just wait a couple weeks and whatever dumbass vatnik you were arguing with will have been proven wrong and moved on to new cope.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, the plan is to make NATO spend billions in air defense, fuel, infrastructure parts, effort, etc.
                Why the hell wouldn't Russia bomb all the power plants it can if it meant it would disrupt logistics, put a strain on administering the country, cost a lot, hurt morale, and so on. Your argument is it hurt civilians, the Russian argument is it just hurts.
                And it is of course a valid tactic, 20000 dollar drones cost millions to defend against, and not even successfully.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >No, the plan is to make NATO spend billions
                OK, we're doing that, it's pretty sustainable because you're pitting 40% of the global economy against Nigeria with aids, now what?

                If the Russian plan is literally just "piss away NATO's cold war surplus and cash until Russia collapses again" it's not a very good plan.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                also, double reply, but

                dollar drones cost millions to defend agains
                Russia is effectively spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per Shasneed (trading dozens of Su-35s for a few thousand lawn darts) and the primary arm used to down them is the ZSU-23 and Gepard. You're wildly underestimating the cost to Russia and overestimating the cost of countering what's basically a pared down V1 flying bomb.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A few days ago some shill also tried to claim this shit. They didn't trade unequal amounts of hardware with the Iranians first of all, the Gepards aren't intercepting as well as has been claimed secondly.

                >You're wildly underestimating the cost to Russia and overestimating the cost of countering what's basically a pared down V1 flying bomb.
                Seems to be doing fine at killing power substations that costs hundreds of thousands to fix. The simple math of it is there: it is wildly beneficial to use the drones, so they will be used. All the crying over civilians suffering is childish naivety.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >n-nuh uh!
                Alright, back to the "wait two weeks for a new flavor of cope to drop". I'm sure your unstoppable Alibaba wonderweapon will make the oinky oinky piggers surrender by then, right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Your strawmanning doesn't do anything for me. We saw the claimed 100% interception rate fall apart when there's videos of attacks posted with air defence missing the mark a lot. We saw the consequences on the ground as well, so the damage is being done. You can cry about it ifbyou want, it doesn't change a thing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So why keep bombing power stations?
                Russia cannot win the war in Ukraine.
                They had the opportunity in the first month and that door has closed. Continuation of this war is an error by Russia and their calculation is complicated by internal concerns such as avoiding Putin being killed by a coup.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thread is about bombing civilians
                >why do you discuss how russia bombs civilians
                big think there, armatard. you've been very obvious with your identical insults lately.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                One thing about butthurt Slavs is: they have no introspective at all. Like how he projects the butthurt to everyone else but himself. Or how they ascribe the lying to Russia, but then do 10x more of it. It does them more harm than good, but I don't think they're able to even fathom why.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strategic carpet bombing is just cope for you're a Russmoron with no precision weapons.

    You can have thousands of bombers with hundreds of sorties carpet bombing cities to rubble, losing half of them to fighters and AA in the process.

    Or you can have hundred bombers armed with precision weapons taking out all identified critical targets including military industry, dual use shit like power plants and logistic infrastructure.

    The west didn't stop carpet bombing because they don't like poor civilians being killed, they stopped it because throwing a million ton of bombs just means that you are too retarded to do the same job with a hundredth of that smartly.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you failed to count all the craters in the fields around the base....

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you commit to strategic bombing, you have to go all the way. In WWII the allies primarily targeted industrial facilities, but dehousing and dead workers was definitely an objective. The amount of ordnance required to rubble cities is absolutely immense and not feasible post-Vietnam, Dresden was struck with 3900 tons of bombs, going with the fairly standard 500 kilogram warhead found in Tomahawks and Kalibrs, that would mean 7800 cruise missiles fired at a single city. In the Gulf war a total of 1100 was fired in total.

    If Russians razed Kiev it would definitely impact Ukrainian warfighting, but the fact is that they cannot. They can attack civilian infrastructure which creates problems, but is not powerful enough to force them into submission.

    Vietnam is also a bit of a failure to commit with restrictions around targeting cities leading to a scenario where most bombs are completely wasted on poorly defined or nonexistent targets but that's a whole nother discussion.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The advent of precision munitions has rendered strategic bombing completely obsolete... at least, for military purposes. If your intent is murdering civilians because you're a retard, then yeah sure carpet bomb away,

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      with russians rather than "advent" it's more like a "poor attempt"

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strategic/terror bombing is an act of barbarism.
    Not many peoples in history committed barbaric acts because it was part of their culture.
    Civilized peoples notmally do this out of desperation or retaliation.

    Normally a conflict has to escalate to a certain degree for such things to happen.
    One party does something that really pisses off or weakens the other one and they start fighting dirty, biting, throwing sand, kicking balls or pulling out a weapon.

    An example of this is when Ukraine Allahuackbar'd the Crimea bridge.
    That's when Putin sent wave after wave of flying lanmowers towards Ukranian sub
    stations.

    >Would you bomb civvies, PrepHole?
    Generally no.
    But such acts can be the lesser evil.
    Nuking Japan was the sensible choice, since you had an entire people drilled to be fanatics who fought the enemy with psychotic fervor.
    Hundreds of thousands of US soldiers would have died and would have had to kill children with sharpened sticks and elderly people hiding hand grenades in the millions.
    Playing God and simply deleting cities from the map one by one made those fanatics understand that they couldn't gain any glory from this, since they were now reduced to insects.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Strategic/terror bombing is an act of barbarism.
      Interesting.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah
        that shit nato did to serbia will never be forgotten by the serbs
        safe to say if a nato country tried to invade serbia, its going to be tough. serbs will always have morale available to kill nato pigs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        serbs deserved it for being barbaric themselves. NATO was lenient on them and only disabled their grid temporarily instead of destroying it like the better people they are.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bombing civvies works in the advantage of the enemy though.
          Enemy morale is not something you'd fuck with.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NATO didn't bomb civvies either, at least intentionally.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              its always intentional, but if civvies died, the enemy will spin that as an attack on the innocents.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if it was intentional the death count would be many more

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                shouldve gone all out if youre gonna kill civvies anyway

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes it is and the USA aren't better than Russia in any way.
        Iraq, Serbia and Libya got off easy due to the high level of technology, allowing to strike with pin point precision.
        Vietnam and Afghanistan showed us what the USA are willing to do when the enemy isn't giving up.

        What we can learn is that those aren't mechanism bound by cultures or political ideologies, but mechanisms of power subjecting all humans.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >USA aren't better than Russia in any way.
          Hmm, i wonder who did Bucha. Were this USA?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where did all the unaffiliated hadjis go, José?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              answer the question instead of posting gibberish.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one blissfully unaware of the mass POW hangings in Afghanistan by the US. No intel?? Not ISIS? Wrong place wrong time and didn't get pasted by a drone or chopper? You get the rope!

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                who did bucha? answer me, vatnik. posting whataboutisms won't make it go away.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wish NATO firebombed servia

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Post more examples of humanitarian bombings done by civilized people.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wait, Libya had water infrastructure?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why yes, funny you should ask. Libya's water pipeline network was the most ambitious infrastructure project of the XX century, touted as 8th wonder of the world, and was almost reaching its completion before Gaddafi had decided to abandon US dollar and tie his currency to gold

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >libya
          >most ambitious anything
          lol, just lol

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    It did a long as the goal was to continue justifying staying and dumping money into the mic

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is justified if others do it to you, it is not necessarily smart, as it destroys any possible motivation the opposition might have towards making peace. In Russia's case there is no point in not bombing them indiscriminately because frankly, there is not nor will there ever be leadership that can or will change their national policy towards one that isn't belligerent and imperialist. Every Russian is either a brainless troglodyte hungering for the blood and resources of his neighbors or a slave in thrall to other brainless troglodytes, the only circumstance in which they do not desire war is when they are incapable of waging one.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a war crime.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the most common PrepHole shitpost thread (excluding blatant shilling and spam) is now "hey guys I watched Perun's video on X, here's what I remember, do you agree?"
    At least you fags are cribbing from someone vaguely competent instead of Binkov, I guess

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    strategic bombing isn't "bombing civilians". it's bombing strategic targets like military factories, bridges, transportation hubs, etc, as compared to bombing tactical targets like artillery shell depots, above-ground septic tanks, and trenches.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the problem with strategic bombing (which as you correctly point out should be distinguished from pure terror bombing) is that bridges and factories tend to be in the same place as civilians, so even if you're using PGMs and trying to avoid excessive civilian casualties you're bound to hit some

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why don't they use Iskanders on all the bridges on that picture is why I don't understand. Should have been done ages ago.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Because
          >one or two conventially armed Iskanders won't take down a heavily reinforced bridge, even sustained GMLRS bombardment didn't take down the Antonovsky bridge entirely, it was blown in the Russian rout
          >dropping over a dozen "tactical" nuclear weapons on Ukraine would likely cause some people to be mad at Russia and join the war
          >Russia doesn't actually have two dozen Iskander left

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >one or two
            Your point being? Why is it one or two? Why not two dozen? What is the point of the rest of your post after that?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Because Russia does not have one or two dozen Iskanders per bridge, it's not even clear they have one or two dozen Iskanders left in total. The "rest of my post" (two lines, which was apparently two lines too many for your reading comprehension) addressed alternative warheads and this exact question.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia does not have one or two dozen Iskanders per bridge
                According to...
                And secondly, that WAS the question you bafoon. Why weren't Iskanders used in murdering the river crossings instead of other targets that might not be as significant.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                According to the lack of Iskanders being fired.
                >but why are Russians retarded
                that's a self-answering question

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >According to the lack of Iskanders being fired.
                They were still firing them as of last week.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bridges and factories tend to be in the same place as civilians
        something the enemy should have thought about beforehand. placing civilian human shields around your infrastructure does not magically make it off-limits.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Strategic bombing?
    Yes

    >Random Civilian Bombings to break their will to fight?
    No.

    Strategic bombing has a military objective. Attacking "Civilian Morale" has been shown not to be an effective strategy and would be considered a warcrime under international law.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It completely destroys their capacity to do anything. You forget that total war is, in fact, total. Civilians are fair game, because their dollar funds the war.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Strategic bombing hasn't been a thing in decades. Smart bombing has been the standard since the 90s and it has been the defacto standard since then. Does strategic bombing work, yes, but only if you can flatten and destroy industries. These days mass bombing fleets are simply fat targets for AA. Does smart bombing work, yes, but only if your munitions and intel yield results. Russians are employing neither and the reason is simple. They don't have the fleet nor munitions for strategic bombing, and their smart munitions are not smart enough to yield the accurate hits that the smaller munitions payload needs to be effective. Can they improve this, yeah but they played themselves and Shaheeds will not be able to defeat proper AA that their limited success has brought out. Will they be able to do strategic bombing if they mobilize, no. They have neither the planes, nor the industry to build the fleet of planes, nor the pilots to bring out big bombing. Do either work, yes, but bombs don't hold regions, they weaken them for ground troops to occupy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Shaheeds will not be able to defeat proper AA
      Guess Okraina doesn't have proper AA.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *