• 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?