Quote:
Originally Posted by Oystein
Sure it is - but at what cost?
"Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, said: "It is regrettable that the U.S. and a handful of other states continue to insist on their need to use a weapon that the rest of world is banning because it causes unacceptable harm to civilians."
Come to think of it - why not use NAPALM still too? That is pretty effective!
|
Again why direct it at the US? The US is the world leader at actively seeking and developing safer weapons. Meaning safer for civilians once the weapon has been used.
In ww2 it took hundreds of bombers flying over cities dropping thousands of bombs to take out targets killing hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the war.
A little over 50 years later, we have weapons that can be launched to hit a specific target with one bomb per target accuracy in most cases. Is there still civilian deaths of course and yes that sucks, but it's nothing like what has gone on in the past.
While I may not agree with the way our military is used or the politics behind it, there is no other military in the world that has worked as hard as ours has at keeping civilian casualties as low as possible.
You think the Russians or the Chinese give a fuck about civilian casualties? Would you rather us still need to level entire cities with hundreds of bombers killing thousands in the process?