How bad is colatteral damage with bombs?

How bad is colatteral damage with bombs?

If we look at Syria, wouldn't bombs kill more civilians than actual IS members, thus justifying the IS cause of fighting us? Don't bombs turn the bystanders to the extremists?

Am I stupid or is all this bombing counterproductive?

>mfw the cost a few missiles could put my entire family through college

>Am I stupid or is all this bombing counterproductive?

No, because the entire point of the conflict is to generate a steady supply of forces to fight. The petty fighting is profitable for certain interests, it must continue for as long as possible.

Elaborate. What certain interests?

>What certain interests?
Namely those that produce the bombs, the vehicles, the ammunition, the fuel, etc.

>The state should feed me, educate me and keep me healthy because I am unable to succeed in the closest thing we have to a meritocracy

>The state should feed me, educate me and keep me healthy
Isn't the state here to protect me and it's citizens?
>meritocracy
Meritocracy is a meme and not a good model for running a society.

The state isn't parents.
>Meritocracy is a meme and not a good model for running a society.
t.collectivist

>kill less civilians than the people you're bombing
>???????
>profit

Although really, as long as they keep dying fast enough that the Kurds and IA can gain ground, the feels matter a lot less.

>the state should waste billions of dollars in a misguided attempt to piss off Russia even though most of our soldiers on the front lines were born after the Cold War ended

Who are you quoting?
Where did I show support for the US' foreign policy in my post?

>The state should feed me, educate me and keep me healthy
This is correct, yes

Isn't giving free college still based on grades even closer to meritocracy though since now also poorfags can join the fun?

>collateral damage
Ultimately, there is no such thing as collateral damage in any era post total war. The civilian body is complicit and actively involved in the conflict whether you realize it or not. It's the same reason entire cities were burned to the ground in Japan and Germany. What you, and other people like you, are trying to do is apply the morality of the potential for conflict on the conflict itself which is stupid. Going to war is immoral. Once the war has begun, the gloves are off.

tl;dr
No such thing as innocent bystanders. Everyone is complicit.

>japan

Welcome to /E.dgeville/

>reality is edgy
I guess, but that doesn't really apply to the meat of the argument.

It's not collateral damage if you do it intentionally.

not every war has been an all out clash of civilizations trying to annihilate each other and there is a reason professional standing armies were developed... murdering civilians severely hampers your credibility at the negotiating table

Failure of misunderstanding of the argument. You're not wrong in stating that not all conflicts are conflicts of annihilation. I never said they were. What I said is that in the era of total war everyone is complicit and is thus a fair target. You don't murder civilians. You strategically eliminate food, funding and supply for military targets through their benefactors: the civilian body. Civilians are not innocent. On the contrary, they are complicit and actively engaged in the conflict despite being non-combatants and thus should not receive protection. They are just as much of a strategic target as military installations and government buildings. In fact, maybe even more so.

the #EraOfTotalWar is a meme and the reality is that there are powerful organizations that enforce limitations on warfare (when it suits them) i'm not saying that killings civilians can't be strategically effective im saying committing war crimes as an official policy paints you as an edgelord from a branding perspective and in the #EraOfTotalWar perhaps your name/reputation is your most valuable asset

And the powerful organizations in question are controlled by the bombers in question so perhaps your argument is moot.

>fair target
That depends on your strategic goals.

>he thinks globalists = average jarhead

wehew

>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

>It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

>The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

>It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

>It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

>We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

>We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

>This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

>This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Straight from the mouth of a man who was 1,000 times the soldier that a common shnook like you could ever be

yeah dude what if we just like had no army man

Are you a fucking idiot or something? That was the supreme commander of the allies, the most senior military figure on the winning side of the largest conflict in history.Do you really think he was advocating for total pacifism? No, he was making a point with a whole hell of a lot more eloquence than you are: that we as a society DO in fact, have a responsibility to provide for our country in peace as well as in war.

If you can't accept society on these terms, if you need jungle law so badly, go live in a jungle and let the civilized folk carry on with their business

>>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
seems to be ignoring the millions fed and housed by the global defence industry and its many offshoots DESU

And you're just a random chest thumping jackass in a military uniform. Tell me again why your opinion has more merit than Eisenhower's?

>mfw the petroleum per missile ratio gives much more money than all your payments from all your life

i aint in the military, dweeb.
you do know multiple people can reply to the same posts

Oh, I see, you're not the jock, you're just the fat kid who follows the jocks around making fun of people in order to impress them. Thanks for clarifying.

And your point is a broken window fallacy. "By smashing windows we're giving the window makers work!"

>How bad is colatteral damage with bombs?
Not nearly as bad as it used to be. Crybabies say any collateral damage is too much but they don't appreciate how far the technology has come. Time was you'd miss 9 out of every 10 bombs you dropped, collateral damage in WW2 could mean most or even all of an entire town just to drop one bridge.

Greater accuracy and power in each bomb these days means not only less collateral damage but less wasted effort and wasted bombs. In a single precision strike you can eliminate your target now, if you're unlucky you also catch some civies in it, but at least it's not the old days where you had to do multiple runs and pray there's buildings still standing when you're done.

There's lots of video footage of bombings in the middle east. You notice how the bombs often miss their target by a huge distance, but the huge explosion makes up for it right? You get that terrorist, and 10 civilians are just a bonus.

There is no such thing as a free market, it's like saying the purest game is one without any rules. There is no game then.

I believe the point that wanted to make was that, yes, while the money spent on a bomber could pay for the things Eisenhower mentioned it would be better that the money is kept in its owners hands instead of being taken by the government, even if it's for a cause better than weapons.

Imagine what it must be like for the populace in those countries, who know that like 9/10 victims to drone attacks are civilians, to see a drone flying around in the vicinity all day - every day - and not know whether you're going to live through this encounter or get blasted in a hellfire rocket explosion.

That is true terror.