• funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Sure, just name a conflict that was resolved by bombing, with the exception of Hiroshima/Nagasaki- which im not counting because those were nukes, and Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway.

      • Saapas@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        The comment just said that you could genocide most of the population. Not that it would resolve a conflict

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          A fair correction. I’ll counter than the USA dropped more bombs than WW2 total on Vietnam, including dropping 100,000 tons of bombs on a 40 mile² area and a) didn’t kill everyone, b) didn’t even bomb every settlement in that area and c) lost.

          • Saapas@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Vietnam’s population was a lot larger and the population was way less concentrated. Tiny concentrated population is a much easier matter to “deal with”

            • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              eh, I still don’t buy it.

              WW2 was gonna be over by the second Christmas, Ukraine was a month-long special operation, etc…

              Do you have an example on a similar population/campaign?