Great American humorist. C# developer. Open source enthusiast.

XMPP: wagesj45@chat.thebreadsticks.com
Mastodon: wagesj45@mastodon.jordanwages.com
Blog: jordanwages.com

  • 4 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle



  • You’re probably right, and I used overly broad language. I’m sure there would be targeted strikes. But any strike against infrastructure would be what I would consider a Big Deal™. Everything is so interconnected now that taking out the power grid, for example, would wreak havoc on all the innocent civilians in the area. Just look at how shit hit the fan when Texas lost power in the winter.

    I just think it would be a much more complicated situation than either argument of “we have all the guns, libruls” or “we have Predator drones, conservatard”. I’m used to conservatives making stupid arguments. It bothers me more when I see my side do it.

    But hey, maybe I’m the idiot and it would all work out with targeted strikes. That’s why I’m just some guy on the internet and not a general in the Army or whatever.


  • I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.

    My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?



  • Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.