When fighting in a densely built up area with a large number of civilians, is it considered a good idea to drop lots of unguided 2000 pound bombs instead of using precision munitions, drone strikes, or smaller ordnance? Why or why not?
When fighting in a densely built up area with a large number of civilians, is it considered a good idea to drop lots of unguided 2000 pound bombs inst...
just nuke em
Yes
Because
It's better if you take a normal bomb and Black person rig some wings on it and call it a glide bomb.
why though
If you want to pretend you care about civilians you use PGMs, if you actually care about civilians you put boots on the ground, if you don't care about the civilians you use whatever you have.
yeah
When posting in a board with a large number of shills, is it considered a good idea to make lots of unrelated points instead of using clear, concise, and understandable reasoning? Why or why not?
>is it considered a good idea to drop lots of unguided 2000 pound bombs instead of using precision munitions, drone strikes, or smaller ordnance?
Depends. For example, if you expect a future attack, you may want to save your stock of PGMs.
Modern aiming computers will render even dumb bombs pretty accurate anyway, the difference is going to go from hitting a particular room in a building to hitting the building itself.
chemical weapons would be the best, you don't damage the infrastructure
An umbrella defeats most chemical weapons.
>lil rabbit should have used an umbrella
Neutron bomb. It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done.
>gets things done
Except it doesn't and that's the reason we gave up trying to make them.
it does, the reason they're not being made anymore is armored vehicles started getting plastic and boron based anti-neutron liners
Every wienerroach you spare will be the next season’s nest.
MOABs from orbit
If they're not your civilians, frick 'em. Carpet bomb everything into a parking lot, then napalm the parking lot.
Enemy soldiers are drawn from civilians. They're fed, housed, supplied, healed and uplifted by civilians. Civilians are their primary reason for fighting. The people working against you in the global forum are civilians. The people spying on you are civilians.
If the population opposes your presence, proceed to kill every single living thing until that opposition is undetectable. That's where the US fricked up in Afghanistan - if we had deleted every single village, there'd be no Taliban. There'd be no Afghan opium trade. There'd only be one big, beautiful wilderness area for real humans to enjoy. We should not be afraid to erase evolution's blemishes from human history. What value does remembering a disease have if we eliminate it for all eternity? What benefits humanity more? - Knowing why a parasitic people wore a certain hat and the word they used for goat? Or, permanently removing that parasite from humanity?
As a side note, I think we should place mines and gun turrets all along the southern U.S. border, and use the new resource of dead wetbacks these emplacements would generate to produce inexpensive lawn fertilizer. Solutions to problems involving foreigners are very simple, very permanent, and easy to implement.
But yes - kill everyone, especially the children, and you will never have to deal with your enemy ever again.
Edgelord detected
So much of an edgelord that the army booted him out.
>Why
Well for the reasons we all know.
>why not?
For the inverse of the aforementioned reasons.
Depends on whether they're actual civilians not involved with the force you're attacking to any meaningful degree, or "civilians" propping the enemy up with their economic actions in a way indistinguishable from an army quartermaster and his grunts.
If they're the former, attacking them is generally bad as it encourages them to support the enemy, but if they're the latter bombs away.
Actual answer:
You can't use the PGMs on every target due to cost and limited availability, sometimes the sniper or RPG team that's harassing your flank is gonna' get a dumb bomb on it if that's what's available. That's why most first world armies don't go setting up firing positions in civilian homes and hospitals.
>limited availability
Maybe if you're like, Canada. The US has been able to drop PGMs at sortie rate since 1985 or so.
Under 10% of the tonnage dropped in Desert Storm was guided. It was the relative effectiveness of smartbombs in that conflict, together with the tech boom of the '90s making guidance cheaper (culminating in the JDAM, which was ~$10,000 in then-year dollars), that made guided weapons ubiquitous. So, you have the right idea, but your timeline is off.
What about situations where your ground troops are not even in the area and you just want to soften up the enemy before sending them in? Is dumping lots of unguided munitions in an area filled with civilians a good strategy?
that is Arab and pidor SOP, yes, ask a vatnik how that worked out in Chechnya
That depends is the intent to punish an entire population that backs the enemy in the cheapest way possible but still have plausible deniability because bombs just work like that?
Maybe you want tens of thousands of dead palestinians on a budget.
Jews used to kill everyone and salt the land so nobody could rebuild. That is thier cultural heritage.
>Maybe you want tens of thousands of dead palestinians on a budget.
Well, they're barely worth a bullet, nevermind a bomb. Guided is just a hat on a hat.
>caring about brown vs. brown combat