Using neutron bombs on taliban safehavens

[AWPrime]

But VF-41 used LANTIRN to take out Serbian revetments, tanks, air bases, and artillery most of the time

And lets not forget all the dummy targets.

 

[richardm]

the killing squads could rampage unchecked.

I didn't even know the Serbs had a National Health Service.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This may be hijacking the thread, but one of the recurring statements I've read is that it is "impossible" to win a war with airpower alone...

That's exactly what the US did, using an F-14 Tomcat fighter squadron, in Kosovo against the Serbs. We had zero ground presence there, but we beat those civilian-killing troops into dust. They eventually had to back down.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that we can win the war in Afghanistan by limiting ourselves to airpower - of course not! But when faced with a conventional enemy, the possibility is there and air superiority becomes much more valuable.

If the nineteen NATO nation smackdown of Serbia for 71 days using mostly airpower is where your example is for "winning a war with airpower" it's a pretty narrow example with little utility for pretty much any other scenario. The limited political objective was achieved by an alliance interceding on an internal dispute inside the borders of a particular country. That precedent isn't necessarily a good one to set, though when all was said and done, the humanitarian objective was well met and a potential repeat of the blood letting in Bosnia averted. The thugathon by Milosovic and his troup in Belgrade certainly invited some response. So too did Russia being in the midst of internal political strife.

This is sorta inane slippery slope, but is useful as a thought experiment: do you want foreigner powers sending armed force to intervene along our border with Mexico if an attempt is made to reverse the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo of 1848?

DR

 

[Dancing David]

To those of you aghast that I would risk civilian deaths in order to eradicate Al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens/ training camps/ supply lines.

Not aghast just questioning it as an effective strategy.

What a bunch of damned hypocrites you are. Ever hear of Mutual Assured Destruction? We were MORE than willing to fry tens of millions of Russian civilians for NOTHING more than REVENGE.

Can't say i thought it was a sensible policy either.

Is or is not that so!?! Reagan blew away Gaddafi's daughter. Clinton killed many civilian is the Balkans. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in Japan and Germany (Dresden?) And why?

Because it was a war.

For the better good, so that violent bullies cannot prevail.

Except now you want to be the bully. Irony.

If N Korea was to launch a nuke at us they would be annihilated, civilians and all, and you damned well know it - and with YOUR hefty approval.

Not mine.

So go suck and egg for criticising me for having the same mind set.

I sense that the meltdown has occured.

I must assume you are turn the other cheek pacifists

No.

What we did in Afghanistan has NOT WORKED. Try something else or are we too stupid to foresee the results if we don't
[/quore]
More fallacies, that is alomost one per sentence.

And to those of you who say violence has always begetted more violence I say no crap?

the application of violence is a considered choice.

And guess what ya Pollyannas: It's gonna go right on staying that way as long as there are two humans still breathing. I suggest you get used to it with 5000 years of history cementing the idea. So don't go messing with me is the message, or I'll mess back

Yup, you are in melt down mode.

I predict suspensions soon.