• @aidan
    link
    010 months ago

    Such a facetious argument to act like guns wouldn’t in some way limit the military.

    Because even if you bomb territory that doesn’t mean you can occupy it, see Afghanistan and Vietnam. Infantry is needed for occupation when the enemy is mixed in with civilians.

    And furthermore, don’t you think in the event of a civil war a fair bit of the military would be a bit unwilling to bomb urban areas?

    • Ann Archy
      link
      1210 months ago

      unwilling to bomb urban areas

      They’ve never had a problem with that before.

      • @aidan
        link
        110 months ago

        Maybe true

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Happened once in all of American history for a single house, under extraordinary circumstances with a house full of an abusive, armed Luddite cult != “The us army is going to relentlessly bomb entire cities”

    • @Aux
      link
      310 months ago

      Bombing people is not that effective indeed. The American government should learn from Stalin - public purges and famine will make anyone compliant. Can’t fight a partisan war when you’re starved to death and can’t even walk.

      • @aidan
        link
        110 months ago

        That was fighting a government, not a populace.

      • @FontMasterFlex
        link
        -510 months ago

        Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t vote for US elections. Not that voting does a god damn thing anyway…