Would the SnowFlake Generation have been able to win WW2

Translation: "Soldiers today need to mass murder civilians."

 

Attacking Dresden served no direct military objective, it did destroy enemy morale. Something these new weapons would not be able to achieve, nor are designed to achieve.

- - - Updated - - -

If this achieves quicker victory yes...just ask Sherman.

 

But it didn't destroy enemy morale. Dresden was captured less than two weeks later by the Russians, bombing itserved no purpose at all.

I ask again, why'd didnt those guys during world war 2 use smart bombs instead of carpet bombing?

Also, provide proof that Sherman deliberately murdered civilians.

 

What are you defining as an MOS (job) that is a "foot soldier"? Our combat tactics are vastly different so that definition has changed. I'm curious who you think fits that category.

- - - Updated - - -

Like what we use now? We can't get a bunch of cave people to end the war with these.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, to win a war sometimes LOTS of civilians will die. Reality that cannot be argued. One enemy will fight harder than the other. One enemy will see one nation too scared to use big bombs, so they'll use them instead. It's called the "Coward's play".

 

This says it all

 

I had a briefing last Friday. In it, our platoon leader was reminded once again not to address us as "you guys", because it might hurt the feelings of the female E4.

 

1. We have deprived terrorists of pretty much real war fighting ability. All they can do at this point is murder people who can't defend themselves and kill absurdly low numbers of combatants with ambush tactics. Less troops have died in the 15 years of Afghanistan than in the first hours of the Battle of France. Modern bombing destroying industrial capacity and its effect on the war fighting ability of our enemies can't be compared.

Or to put is succinctly: how many Panzer divisions and strategic bomber wings has ISIS or the Taliban?

2. What big bombs does ISIS have again? I'm going to bet nothing bigger than the 2,000 JDAMs we drop on them all the time.

 

1. We have done nothing. They are using the same tactics they have. IED's the exception. That was an evolution.
2. Where did I claim ISIS had big bombs? The analogy is if we would be defeating countries like WW2. We would still need to use the biggest bombs to win.

 

Why would we need to use the biggest bombs? Never heard of "economy of force"? Why drop a 20,000lb MOAB on a target a 250lb SDB can destroy?

 

Who's talking about one target? We're talking about ending a war. If America had your mentality, we'd use our conventional "we're sorry" bombs while our enemy says "haha, those cowards. We'll just use bigger bombs and pound them into submission. They won't use anything bigger".

 

No force in history has ever been "pounded into submission" with conventional bombing. Nukes have but we have a nuclear deterrent against them being used on us.

Wars aren't won by "pounding the enemy into submission", they are won by seizing objectives and depriving your enemy of the ability to fight (because all evidence shows you won't sap their will with conventional warfare).

 

That's exactly the nukes job. If some big ass force* needs to be hit into submission, then use the one that works. Proven success.

 

Except nukes have never been used in a tactical role in history and also they've never been used on a nation that wasn't already on the ropes and contemplating surrender.

 

That's not true at all. They certainly have. Japan. Japan refused more than a dozen surrender and planned operational WIFs- even executed up to the day we dropped the nukes.

 

Of course to be clear oxymoron means YOU GUYS need to mass murder civilians...He is far to dainty for such an affair

 

Except all of the chiefs of staff at the time have been quoted as saying nukes were not needed in japan

 

Japan's government was already internally debating surrender, they had lost their entire empire, we had a full blockade of the home islands, and near total air supremacy over them.

They were on the ropes.

 

Won the war

 

Maybe we should have dropped a nuke on grenada....I mean it would have won the war....right?

 

What was the body count of Americans dead vs. WW2. Let's weigh the similarities.

What a stupid comparison lol!

 

What is the required body count for a nuke? Exact number please

 

Yes they were not needed, we could have instead invaded and lost 600,000 to 1.5 million soldiers.

- - - Updated - - -

No one would have noticed them missing from the map.

 

Because WW ll was total war and in the Pacific it was one big freaking free fire zone. All of those islands that were bombarded from the air and from naval guns just before an amphibious assault all had a native population and if they got caught in the cross fire... tough (*)(*)(*)(*).

Even Europe was a free fire zone. If a German OP was established in a church steeple, it was a legitimate target.

 

They also said no invasion was necessary

- - - Updated - - -

Well certainly not you since you would not be the one doing it. LOL

 

So they didn't use smart bombs because they chose to use massive bombardment instead?