I can't remember where I read it, but somewhere I saw a study which tried to step back and answer the question "does this tactic of killing innocent civilians to break a country's resolve, actually have that effect" and the answer was in almost all cases an absolutely resounding fuck no. As you would expect, it just motivates them more to fight you and win.

Even taking the going-to-hell aspect out of it, and just focusing on Russia trying to win the war, them bombing civilians is a pure and counterproductive waste of munitions and of their own military's time.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Remember when the Nazis bombed London, and the British gave up? Remember when the allies firebombed Tokyo or Dresden and the war ended?

It doesn't work. Really the only time a country was bombed into submission, it took 2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more, and they were already in the verge of losing.

[–] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"...2 nuclear weapons and the promise of more"

Not to mention 67+ cities firebombed, countless others traditionally bombed.

They held on for a ridiculous amount of punishment

[–] photoncollector@mastodon.social 4 points 6 months ago

@TheMightyCanuck @Tar_alcaran
They were down to 1,000 calories a day by the end of the war, part of it from grasses.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)