9 ms·

So fire bombing Dresden is better than targeting specific factories?

myrmidon 2y ago
Dresden did not get fire bombed because the allies did not know where the factories were. Air raids against population centers were very much intentional, targeted and optimized (by relying on fire as a damage multiplier).
- rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
  So are you really saying that large bomber formations carpeting an area is better than precision strikes?
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    No, you are arguing against a strawman. What I said is that more targetting information does not necessarily lead to less bombing (or less collateral damage), and the fact that Dresden was firebombed is neither here nor there.
    - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
      Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. The AGM-114R-9X has also been effective at targeting individuals which meant less collateral damage (i.e. innocent civilians) The evidence suggests that better targeting abilities have lead to less bombing and less civilians deaths because of it, though.
      - myrmidon 2y ago
        > Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. That is exactly my point. Dresden was just a juicy target-- dropping a bunch of incendiaries on a city to make it burn, then catching a good chunk of available firefighters with a second wave is just the better bang for the buck than dropping explosives on heavy industry (which can always be repaired). Which is exactly why the city was targeted instead of its industry. Dresden had ~600000 inhabitants and over >20000 deaths during the firebombing. Gaza City has a similar number of inhabitants, and there's been >20000 deaths in Gaza as of early December 2024. Thats very weak evidence. My personal view is that "our wars are less harmful because we do precision strikes" is a somewhat selfdelusional justification that Bush junior used to sell the second Gulf war; a lot of people didn't really buy it then and history mostly proves them right.
        rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
        https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm > For the most part, the collateral damage assessment process for the air war in Iraq worked well, especially with respect to preplanned targets. Human Rights Watch’s month-long investigation in Iraq found that, in most cases, aerial bombardment resulted in minimal adverse effects to the civilian population. > Human Rights Watch recommends that if the United States bombs populated areas, it should: Complete a collateral damage estimate in advance and balance this against the expected direct and concrete military advantage of the attack. Use the smallest effective precision munitions to limit civilian harm. Carry out a bomb damage assessment as soon as possible after the attack and apply immediate lessons learned. The United States has committed itself to all these steps, but it needs to implement them more consistently. Human Rights Watch also recommends that the United States abandon aerial attacks on leadership targets until the targeting and intelligence failures have been corrected. In particular, Strikes should not be based solely on satellite phone intercepts. There should be no strikes in densely populated areas unless the intelligence is considered highly reliable. You can argue all you want about justification of wars. I'm not going to because frankly that's not the point and it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we're going to go to war as a species. It's a fact of life. What's relevant is if more precise targeting of strikes equates to less collateral damage, or as I prefer being more directly descriptive, innocent civilian deaths, which is appears to be true.

Dresden did not get fire bombed because the allies did not know where the factories were. Air raids against population centers were very much intentional, targeted and optimized (by relying on fire as a damage multiplier).

rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
So are you really saying that large bomber formations carpeting an area is better than precision strikes?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  No, you are arguing against a strawman. What I said is that more targetting information does not necessarily lead to less bombing (or less collateral damage), and the fact that Dresden was firebombed is neither here nor there.
  - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
    Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. The AGM-114R-9X has also been effective at targeting individuals which meant less collateral damage (i.e. innocent civilians) The evidence suggests that better targeting abilities have lead to less bombing and less civilians deaths because of it, though.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      > Dresden and other civilian areas that supported factories were bombed because better bombing abilities that could actually take out factories weren't available. That is exactly my point. Dresden was just a juicy target-- dropping a bunch of incendiaries on a city to make it burn, then catching a good chunk of available firefighters with a second wave is just the better bang for the buck than dropping explosives on heavy industry (which can always be repaired). Which is exactly why the city was targeted instead of its industry. Dresden had ~600000 inhabitants and over >20000 deaths during the firebombing. Gaza City has a similar number of inhabitants, and there's been >20000 deaths in Gaza as of early December 2024. Thats very weak evidence. My personal view is that "our wars are less harmful because we do precision strikes" is a somewhat selfdelusional justification that Bush junior used to sell the second Gulf war; a lot of people didn't really buy it then and history mostly proves them right.
      - rUsHeYaFuBu 2y ago
        https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm > For the most part, the collateral damage assessment process for the air war in Iraq worked well, especially with respect to preplanned targets. Human Rights Watch’s month-long investigation in Iraq found that, in most cases, aerial bombardment resulted in minimal adverse effects to the civilian population. > Human Rights Watch recommends that if the United States bombs populated areas, it should: Complete a collateral damage estimate in advance and balance this against the expected direct and concrete military advantage of the attack. Use the smallest effective precision munitions to limit civilian harm. Carry out a bomb damage assessment as soon as possible after the attack and apply immediate lessons learned. The United States has committed itself to all these steps, but it needs to implement them more consistently. Human Rights Watch also recommends that the United States abandon aerial attacks on leadership targets until the targeting and intelligence failures have been corrected. In particular, Strikes should not be based solely on satellite phone intercepts. There should be no strikes in densely populated areas unless the intelligence is considered highly reliable. You can argue all you want about justification of wars. I'm not going to because frankly that's not the point and it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant because we're going to go to war as a species. It's a fact of life. What's relevant is if more precise targeting of strikes equates to less collateral damage, or as I prefer being more directly descriptive, innocent civilian deaths, which is appears to be true.