You're viewing a single thread.
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?
unwilling to bomb urban areas
They've never had a problem with that before.
Maybe true
I agree with you on everything except the government being unwilling to bomb urban areas the police have done it before, why would the military be any different?
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"
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.
Would take a long time before they starve to death though, lol.
Tell that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
That was fighting a government, not a populace.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't vote for US elections. Not that voting does a god damn thing anyway...
Nice, double up on the dumbass takes. 2for1 sale going on here