General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat the hell is a "punishment bombing" anyway??
My understanding of military matters is that normally there is some sort of objective, like "conquer/defend territory X" or "stop X from doing Y". A "punishment bombing" seems like it is intrinsicly void of such an objective.
In other words, what it seems to mean is simply "make a pile of dead people". It seems a lot like such a thing would constitute a crime under international law. Actually, what it sounds a lot like is a terrorist attack.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)million.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)in the first place. So sad to see this represented as a humanitarian strike.
daleo
(21,317 posts)The Brits called them punitive missions during their empire days. I don't know what phrase the Romans used.
The literal meaning: to kill every tenth person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29
daleo
(21,317 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Just like our past few wars, this has no goals or objectives. It's just bombing for the sake of bombing.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Seeing as Syria is not a signatory to the convention on CW, we have to use a non treaty excuse and pretend it's legal.
In the absence of law, you have norms.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)In this case it would be hitting missile launchers and artillery.
The main idea behind it is to make any use of chemical weapons a net negative. In war you try to inflict damage on your enemy while preventing your enemy from inflicting damage on you. If deploying chemical weapons guarantees that you will receive more damage than you deal out then using those weapons ceases to be a viable option.