Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus
Hanoi and Haiphong could have be flattened but fact is the targets were bridges, fuel depots and military operations, yes, civilians died but remember these were dumb bombs back then. If Nixon had the smart weapons of today the civilian casualty's would have been a lot less.
|
Nixon is one of the worst examples in history you could have picked for a leader favouring precision bombing of military targets. Civilian deaths under Nixon were far from just the result of dumb bombs missing their targets. People in Laos and Cambodia are still being blown up to this day by cluster bombs Nixon had dropped on those countries. Between him and Johnson Laos is the most bombed country in history, largely using cluster bombs and with untold volumes of civilian suffering.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not posting this as an argument of which side's history of war is worse or whose suffering has been worse at whose hands. I am strongly anti-war regardless of the aggressor. War is mostly the dehumanizing suffering of normal people caused by struggles for power between those far removed from their lives. It's horrific, and I understand being angry about it. War itself is the enemy. It is always full of 'collateral damage'.