4 ms·
I’m not sure if razing a city to ground and killing hundred thousand civilians is “conventional warfare”.
by 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 agoThat actually is conventional warfare
- gruturo 4y agoConventional 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 agoOkay, 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 agoWhen the US and the UK razed Dresden with 2000 bombers, it resulted in ≈25,000 deaths.