3 ms·
How so? Naively it seems to me that aircraft, drones, and long range missiles could do more harm to non military parts of a country compared to a foot army.
by master-lincoln 3y ago
How so? Naively it seems to me that aircraft, drones, and long range missiles could do more harm to non military parts of a country compared to a foot army.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoIt's a cooling off in two senses: First, these kinds of remote attacks don't take territory and therefore have sharply limited impact on the conflict. The ceiling on what they can accomplish is very low. Second, they are cheaper and lower-risk for the attacking party, representing a lower level of commitment to the conflict. The potential for loss to the attacker is also very low. Moving from a high-investment, high-risk, high-reward strategy to a low-investment, low-risk, low-reward strategy is hard to describe as an "escalation". > Naively it seems to me that aircraft, drones, and long range missiles could do more harm to non military parts of a country compared to a foot army. You're not alone. I have read that many people in the West were genuinely confused as to how the Tutsi genocide could have been accomplished with machetes. But foot armies are more than capable of inflicting whatever level of destruction you have in mind.