If a modern military were to firebomb Raqqa in a similar manner to Dresden, what planes, modern equivalent weapons and tactics would they use?
P.S. no nukes.
![Carpet-bombing[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/W0V4moB.jpg "Carpet-bombing[1].jpg")
>there will never be an unrestricted strategic bombing campaign with modern capabilities
>>28446174
You mean the Vietnam War? http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-christmas-bombing-1813815/
>>28445723
Remind me again why this is not a war crime?
>>28450191
They lost.
>>28448187
>You mean the Vietnam War?
For the last fucking time Vietnam did not have strategic bombing. They bombed a few trails and mud huts in Cambodia but the major population centers were largely untouched.
Yes they physically dropped a lot of bombs, but they didn't hit anything.
>>28445723
B-52s are still operational, you know.
>>28450191
Because of the multiude of war crimes they commited
>the earliest mass execution of civilians during the war happened on Sept. 4th 1939
thats why
>>28450191
Lollercaust. Every single time somebody brings up the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in germany where more people were killed than in the nuclear attacks combined and the effects were just as or even more horrifying some body will bring up the 6 million jews.. Yeah that happened but since when does one evil justify another?
Read about how they intentionally created firestorms that burned people to crisp several street blocks away and you'll start to realize the true horrors of American and British actions during the war..
Russian warcrimes against German civilian population are mild compared to what the western allies did. Crimes against humanity is what they are.
>>28450278
Ok so any atomic bomb drop on the USA is not considered a warcrime because they did it first.
>>28450238
>3 or 4 dropping full loads on Ahmed's face
I'm rock hard at the thought.
>>28450280
Maybe you should have considered alliance with the US and Britain before starting a war. Victors write history, the defeated revise it and complain about it on anonymous taiwanese cave painting chalkboards
>>28450278
>they done it therefore we can do it
>>28450280
Yep, even more hilarious when you realise the extent of Germanys war crimes weren't even known until after the war. We destroyed huge population centres indiscriminately, even purposefully attacking civilians.
>>28450228
Are you bit dense? Did you read article he posted?
Linebacker II included targets around and in Hanoi and Haiphong.
>>28450280
>Russian warcrimes against German civilian population are mild compared to what the western allies did.
Leveling cities is fine if you do with artillery instead of aircraft?
>>28450400
>Are you bit dense? Did you read article he posted?
>Linebacker II included targets around and in Hanoi and Haiphong.
Oh ok they had some targets. That is the same thing as LEVELING ENTIRE CITIES REPEATEDLY.
Are you literally this retarded?
>>28445723
>US military
A couple wings of B1s dropping napalm and Raqqa is gone
>US military, just not using 'fire' bombs
A couple wings of B1s dropping whatever they feel like
>any other Western military
"Hey America, can you please come bomb Raqqa for us? We only have 17 bombs total in inventory"
>>28450191
Because the battle of britain
git rek'd krauts
>>28450191
>posting a 9gag image
but it is a crime against humanity, anon
>>28450347
>We destroyed huge population centres indiscriminately, even purposefully attacking civilians.
Now that being said. While it really doesn't wash away Americas involvement in these crimes. It was Churchill that came up with 'em and Britbongs who started it. Americans just kind went along once they arrived. I'm not sure but they may have started to bomb German civilian targets even before the first German recorded war crime of killing a group of british POWs in northern France.. And if that's so then it was way before the blitz.
Churchill was a fucking piece of shit. While still the first lord of the admiralty he order to the fucked-up landing at Gallipoli knowing fully it was a god-damn suicidal idea just because he couldn't personally deal with the idea that Army was taking all the glory in the war instead of his beloved navy. So all those men had to die just because he didn't want to feel like the useless piece of shit he was.
In the second world war he did shit and was only the symbol as all the real ideas came from his generals and admirals. He just took the glory.. All except the decision to kill innocent Germans which was all him but which he never had to take any responsibility from..
>>28450456
We werent the only ones doing it either.
Germany with Stalingrad, Britain with the Lancasters all over France and Germany, Japan with the various pacific islands and China, Russia artillery-ing anything over 1 storey, etc.
WW2 was a clusterfuck on all sides, everybody did horrible things and commited war crimes. The US just happened to be breddy gud at leveling cities.
>>28450423
>Oh ok they had some targets. That is the same thing as LEVELING ENTIRE CITIES REPEATEDLY.
Strategic bombing is about leveling cities? It has nothing to do with destroying strategic targets like depots, rail yards and shit?
In WWII they didn't have avionics or competent enough air crews to do strategic bombing properly. When it comes to Hanoi and Linebacker II they didn't have to level entire city as they could pretty reliably bomb within couple city blocks of intended targets, even while dumping iron from altitudes impossible during WWII. Ballistic computers, more accurate ground mapping radar, inertial navigation systems and shit.
>>28450512
This
No participant was innocent of war crimes. Especially with bombs and artillery.
When it came to occupation forces though, the western powers were quite a bit more pleasant to surrender to. Somewhat less rape, and far less crushing villagers with tanks.
>>28450630
Yes, that is the definition of strategic bombing.
Linebacker II specifically failed to have any significant effect not because they didnt hit their targets, but because ROE forbade them from bombing strategic targets in Hanoi proper. If memory serves, there was a military depot erected smack dab in the middle of the city because they knew the Americans wouldnt kill 30,000 civilians and leave another quarter million homeless in order to destroy it. We were also forbidden from bombing the major railyard in Hanoi because it was right next to a school.
>>28448187
No, you fucking retard. I'm talking about the firebombing of tokyo type shit.
you're being contrarian just for the sake of it if you truly believe Vietnam had an extensive unrestricted strategic bombing campaign.
Breaking news: war crimes are an after the fact affair.
It's war, there is no morality, even you enter into combat you accept all possible outcomes, and that includes the bombing of everything and anything. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing
>>28450347
>>they done it therefore we can do it
No, its just them killing 1/10 of the population of Poland then whining about war crimes being committed against them is autistic. You reap what you sew
>>28451415
Eye for an eye is outdated you know.
>>28451192
That is terror bombing. It is strategic only in total war.
It doesn't work in a counter-insurgency.
wait, am I supposed to feel bad for those arrogant kraut faggots with their perennial superiority complex? They started a war they couldn't win, they elected a jackass dictator. Too bad so sad. Same goes for the japs.
>>28451256
>It's war, there is no morality
You dumb fucking faggot. What the fuck do you think war is for? The ends which are supposed to justify the means aren't military; they're political. They're civilian.
You have the mindset of a god damn child. Combat isn't a free-for-all that militaries start up on a whim. A field marshal still takes orders.
>>28450191
Because it was a target of logistical and economic value. Roads and workshops make you a perfectly valid target under the laws of the time.
>>28445723
B52's. Incendiary bombs/napalm/WP. Drop bombs on it.
Are you thick or something?
>>28451256
This
War crimes were invented in the last century. What do you chucklefucks think people did throughout history? There is a reason we have the saying "rape and pillage."
The idea of only militaries participating in war is very new to the human race. Historically, wars were nation vs. nation. That means everyone from one nation is fighting everyone of another.
You burn the villages so they can't feed the army.
You destroy factories so they can't equip the army.
You kill the civilians so they can't make more army.
War is a simple 3 letter word. We don't have those anymore. Today we have "conflicts" which coincidentally shares a lot of letters with politics.
