4 ms·

The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infa

The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities.

trasz 4y ago
I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”. Not sure what you mean - that's exactly what it is - do you think 'conventional' has some kind of ethical meaning? If so you're just mistaken about what the term means. It means along the spectrum it's higher intensity than something like a counter-insurgency operation, or 'sub-threshold' we might say, but it's not as far gone as a nuclear engagement.
- tawaydoo 4y ago
  That actually is conventional warfare
- gruturo 4y ago
  Conventional is exactly the right term unfortunately. "Conventional" means all-out war, army vs army. The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    > The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army. What does it do to the opposing army then? And what does that army do in the meantime?
  - trasz 4y ago
    Okay, I think that’s it: to me, using methods of conventional warfare, but aimed against civilians instead of military, is no longer conventional warfare.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  When the US and the UK razed Dresden with 2000 bombers, it resulted in ≈25,000 deaths.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
`precision strike` and 'surgical strike' are mostly marketing terms to conceal the fact that we were bombing civilian buildings just to get one guy. Like sure, it is better than carpet bombing, but thats about all.It's nothing like sending in a SWAT team.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  You're mistaken in the same way as the person I was replying to. 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. Using the term isn't saying anything about the morality of how they're used. It means munitions with more-than-trivial guidance systems. A basic artillery shell as being used in Ukraine is unguided, and will have a target area starting at a hundred metres or so before it's corrected. A precision strike munition will be guided and will be aiming to hit within a few metres, so does not need observation or correction.
  - dundarious 4y ago
    Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq > The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect fire.” Though targeting systems have become much more advanced than the days of old — allowing for both greater precision against the enemy and more careful targeting to avoid killing civilians — these weapons unleash incredibly destructive power wherever their munitions land. ... > The campaign to eject ISIS from Mosul and its surrounding towns was destructive — Iraqis are working to rebuild their homes as they continue to count their dead.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      > artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't? Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires. (By the way we can see you editing your comments after you post them.)

trasz 4y ago

I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”. Not sure what you mean - that's exactly what it is - do you think 'conventional' has some kind of ethical meaning? If so you're just mistaken about what the term means. It means along the spectrum it's higher intensity than something like a counter-insurgency operation, or 'sub-threshold' we might say, but it's not as far gone as a nuclear engagement.
tawaydoo 4y ago
That actually is conventional warfare
gruturo 4y ago
Conventional is exactly the right term unfortunately. "Conventional" means all-out war, army vs army. The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  > The problem is that russia is carrying out conventional warfare tactics against a civilian population rather than an opposing army. What does it do to the opposing army then? And what does that army do in the meantime?
- trasz 4y ago
  Okay, I think that’s it: to me, using methods of conventional warfare, but aimed against civilians instead of military, is no longer conventional warfare.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
When the US and the UK razed Dresden with 2000 bombers, it resulted in ≈25,000 deaths.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

`precision strike` and 'surgical strike' are mostly marketing terms to conceal the fact that we were bombing civilian buildings just to get one guy. Like sure, it is better than carpet bombing, but thats about all.It's nothing like sending in a SWAT team.

chrisseaton 4y ago
You're mistaken in the same way as the person I was replying to. 'Precision fires' is a technical term, not a moral one, or a marketing term. Using the term isn't saying anything about the morality of how they're used. It means munitions with more-than-trivial guidance systems. A basic artillery shell as being used in Ukraine is unguided, and will have a target area starting at a hundred metres or so before it's corrected. A precision strike munition will be guided and will be aiming to hit within a few metres, so does not need observation or correction.
- dundarious 4y ago
  Artillery bombardment was widely used in Mosul. This article is puffery, and is (typically) oblique about how the artillery was used upon Mosul, but the title is illustrative: How U.S. Artillery in Iraq Regained Its Status as ‘King of Battle’. https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq https://www.coffeeordie.com/artillery-iraq > The various howitzers, mortars, and rockets that make up both light and heavy artillery are known in military jargon as “indirect fire.” Though targeting systems have become much more advanced than the days of old — allowing for both greater precision against the enemy and more careful targeting to avoid killing civilians — these weapons unleash incredibly destructive power wherever their munitions land. ... > The campaign to eject ISIS from Mosul and its surrounding towns was destructive — Iraqis are working to rebuild their homes as they continue to count their dead.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > artillery is not verboten in US military doctrine Nobody said it was. The US obviously has massive artillery firepower, both massed fires and precision fires, and using it is of course part of its doctrine. Who are you responding to that you think said it wasn't? Both light artillery and precision fires were used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not remotely like in Ukraine where they are using massed fires. (By the way we can see you editing your comments after you post them.)