For example, the Netherlands are currently pouring cement down their oil derricks to try and prevent a future government from re opening them, over absurdly minor earthquakes, despite the energy crisis.
The US could carpet bomb their enemies like they did in WW2, instead they pursue one of the lowest civilian casualty methods of in the history of the world, and nobody even cares because somehow that’s not good enough
Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime because the end state is the same as bombing civilians. Killing power shuts down hospitals and emergency responders (generators run out eventually) and desalination plants. The military is largely unphased, they’re the first ones to get gas for generators.
Also, this is carpet bombing. Carpet bombing is the targeting of civilian infrastructure with effectively willful ignorance of the collateral damage.
We started a war knowing the only way to win was either boots on the ground or war-criming our adversary into submission. We don’t get to pretend our hands are tied and we have to send out the bombers. We don’t have to do this because Iraq forces us to, we have to do this because we elected a man who can barely read Post It notes and ignored half a century of military intelligence. We are at fault for every dollar of damage caused to infrastructure and every life lost.
What makes you think these targeted strikes are any better? Did the school girls say, "o, but at least our entire city wasn't carpet bombed like an obvious war crime, instead we were drone striked in such a morally ambiguous way. O well"
No.
And why did America have so many enemies???
Maybe because we keep finding excuses to invent them, and then does hundreds of "morally grey" bombings. But at least it wasn't another Vietnam, right?
reply