• funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I mean that’s what I’m saying - most bombs miss by more than is effective. Close counts for a hand grenade if you don’t throw it in totally the wrong direction.

    Edit: …and so far the only counter argument is “once we dropped a single bomb that was too big to miss - a decade ago.”

    you dont have to convince me, of course, I just remain unconvinced

    • village604
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Your entire point is irrelevant to the discussion, though.

      If the goal was to only kill enemy combatants without harming civilians, it would be relevant, but that’s not what’s being discussed. It doesn’t matter if the bomb is a little inaccurate if your goal is the total destruction of a city. You just keep dropping them until the job is done.

      The point the other person was making is that we have a lot of really big bombs in our arsenal to do it with. The MOAB was just an example of a really big bomb.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, but I’m saying it doesn’t work. Accuracy is only one part of it - but also you can’t destroy a city without accuracy.

        London, Dresden, etc have all been bombed for years at a time and still stand. I think you’re over estimating the efficacy of bombs.