Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

FatFreeGoodness · 11-17-2005, 08:10 AM

Losthellhound wrote:
"I dont know where you are getting you information on this...
Napalm munitions (or fier[sic] bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidance[sic]. They also lack stabilizing[sic] fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion.. "

Please reread what I wrote. I said "The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. "
Nowhere did I claim that the US never used dumb bombs. I was pointing out the clear effort to avoid unneeded casualties by carefully selecting the munitions appropriate for the surroundings. This practice would preclude the use of such weapons as huge firebombs or "daisy cutters" in areas with nearby noncombatant populations. It does NOT preclude the use of dumb bombs, firebombs, or daisy cutters in other areas.

Losthellhound : "Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties""

It is NOT the goal of bombs to "provide minimal casualties". I did not claim this. The goal of the military is to destroy the target, with minimal unintended casualties. One way this is done is by choosing the weapon that matches the requirement. It may be perfectly correct to choose a mk77 firebomb for one target, but very irresponsible to choose it for a different one. This is no different from any other weapon. You choose the weapon that will destroy the enemy with least risk to others, with "others" being both your own troops and noncombatants.
To claim that one should eliminate a weapon solely because it is not a precision weapon is silly, since not all situations call for precision weapons.
To call for the elimination of a weapon because it kills the other guy too well is silly, since that is the whole purpose of the weapon.

Clear now?

11-17-2005, 08:10 AM	#64 (permalink)
FatFreeGoodness Tilted	Losthellhound wrote: "I dont know where you are getting you information on this... Napalm munitions (or fier[sic] bombs) are not precision weapons. They are dumb bombs.. None of them have laser guidance[sic]. They also lack stabilizing[sic] fins because the bombs have to have a tumbling motion in order to maximize dispersion.. " Please reread what I wrote. I said "The position of the US is that they take great care to bomb only military targets. This is demonstrated repeatedly by its well known and unique practice of using precision guided munitions to destroy military targets near civilian positions with minimal casualties to civilians. " Nowhere did I claim that the US never used dumb bombs. I was pointing out the clear effort to avoid unneeded casualties by carefully selecting the munitions appropriate for the surroundings. This practice would preclude the use of such weapons as huge firebombs or "daisy cutters" in areas with nearby noncombatant populations. It does NOT preclude the use of dumb bombs, firebombs, or daisy cutters in other areas. Losthellhound : "Throw a 2 litre soda pop bottle in the air in heavy wind. Watch the spray, then you tell me a bomb that spews fire like that that burns at 1200 celcius will provide "minimal casualties"" It is NOT the goal of bombs to "provide minimal casualties". I did not claim this. The goal of the military is to destroy the target, with minimal unintended casualties. One way this is done is by choosing the weapon that matches the requirement. It may be perfectly correct to choose a mk77 firebomb for one target, but very irresponsible to choose it for a different one. This is no different from any other weapon. You choose the weapon that will destroy the enemy with least risk to others, with "others" being both your own troops and noncombatants. To claim that one should eliminate a weapon solely because it is not a precision weapon is silly, since not all situations call for precision weapons. To call for the elimination of a weapon because it kills the other guy too well is silly, since that is the whole purpose of the weapon. Clear now?