4 ms·

There's nothing about Russia's terror bombing that's related to not having advanced technology. Russia is using terror bombing because their strategic calculati

There's nothing about Russia's terror bombing that's related to not having advanced technology. Russia is using terror bombing because their strategic calculations have determined that weakening the Ukrainian nation would give them a strategic advantage - they've used advanced drones for this purpose as well as advanced missiles. If they had even more advanced systems, they would use them similarly. Perhaps you could argue an advanced social system wouldn't target civilians but that's different issue (and still a hard one). ...by making them more precise and intelligent... Precise technology is just as effective at precisely targeting civilians as it is at precisely soldiers and there hasn't been end to forces that view various civilians as the enemy. And indeed, nations have very seldom targeted civilians because of the lack of precision - because civilians were standing next to soldiers or something similar. The human shield phenomena has happened but NAZIs targeted London for bombing because they wanted to break the British Nation. Etc.

lisasays 3y ago
But of course. We have to remember they bombed that theater in Mariupol (with a "precision" guided missile no less) not despite the fact that there were children and mothers inside -- but because of it.
staunton 3y ago
I agree with your assessment as far as Ukraine is concerned. However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. What would you prefer as a civilian: living in a country being conquered by Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, occupied by Nazis in WWII or living in any of the countries occupied since WWII (including Ukraine)? We even used to have a different word for it: "conquered". What was the lastest country in history, where this word would be appropriate?
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. My point is specifically that progress in the technologies of war don't by themselves promise that things will be less brutal. Quite possibly other things have produced progress. I make that clear in my parent post. I would also note that technology produces unpredictable changes in the strategic situation and the actual result from a changed strategic is itself unpredictable even from the strategic situation. So where a technology change might take us is unpredictable and unpredictable-over-time. Notably, nuclear deterrence has so far worked well for keeping the world peaceful and is something of a factor for the relative pleasantness of the situation you cite. But if nuclear deterrence were to slip into nuclear war, the few survivors would probably think of this technology advance as the worst thing the world ever saw.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nemo 3y ago
  >What would you prefer as a civilian: living in a country being conquered by Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, occupied by Nazis in WWII or living in any of the countries occupied since WWII (including Ukraine)? East Timor, Tibet, Darfur, Iraq, Central African Republic, there's lots of post-WW II events that are easily as wretched for the victims.

lisasays 3y ago

But of course. We have to remember they bombed that theater in Mariupol (with a "precision" guided missile no less) not despite the fact that there were children and mothers inside -- but because of it.

staunton 3y ago

I agree with your assessment as far as Ukraine is concerned. However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. What would you prefer as a civilian: living in a country being conquered by Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, occupied by Nazis in WWII or living in any of the countries occupied since WWII (including Ukraine)? We even used to have a different word for it: "conquered". What was the lastest country in history, where this word would be appropriate?

joe_the_user 3y ago
However, I hope it's not a strawman to assume you're arguing that there is no progress in warfare in the sense of harm inflicted upon civilians. My point is specifically that progress in the technologies of war don't by themselves promise that things will be less brutal. Quite possibly other things have produced progress. I make that clear in my parent post. I would also note that technology produces unpredictable changes in the strategic situation and the actual result from a changed strategic is itself unpredictable even from the strategic situation. So where a technology change might take us is unpredictable and unpredictable-over-time. Notably, nuclear deterrence has so far worked well for keeping the world peaceful and is something of a factor for the relative pleasantness of the situation you cite. But if nuclear deterrence were to slip into nuclear war, the few survivors would probably think of this technology advance as the worst thing the world ever saw.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nemo 3y ago
>What would you prefer as a civilian: living in a country being conquered by Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan, occupied by Nazis in WWII or living in any of the countries occupied since WWII (including Ukraine)? East Timor, Tibet, Darfur, Iraq, Central African Republic, there's lots of post-WW II events that are easily as wretched for the victims.