bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (08/07/85)
> *** A bomb is not a military weapon. Rather, it is a political weapon. *** > > A bomb is not designed to take territory (the basic goal of all wars), but is > intended to demoralize the population while *maybe* destroying installations > useful to the enemy. The bombing of London during WWII was not aimed at WHAT???????? TAKING TERRITORY IS NOT THE BASIC GOAL OF ALL WARS. The basic goal of ANY war is to win. If a country can win a war without firing a shot great, but its not gonna happen. > destroying London. The Germans intended to demoralize the population to the > point where England would surrender, a situation which would have given > Germany the full advantages of the English shipping docks, ports,manufacturing I don't know of to many societies that be demoralized by repeted bombings. Maybe I'm wrong but at least everytime the U.S. was bombed it was a rallying point for it's people. I think the Germans wanted to bring England to a grinding hault and immoblized to make it easier for them to march in and take over. > facilities, and food production. The bombing of Hiroshima was not designed > to end the war in Japan. It WAS intended to ensure that the Japanese would > never even think of attacking the US again. Note that it failed in that I think it was both > respect, and they have been waging economic war against the world since > MacArthur took over. > > What we need to do is figure out how to put bombs and weapons of that nature > back in their place, and out of the DoD budget. ?weapons of that nature? what nature? The type that kill, scare, made of metal? What do you suggest the army uses when war breaks out? How about issuing every soldier a 590 page Congressional Record Newspaper any point them in the direction of the enemy? Bob Nebert sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***