How can an army, which has no airforce cause maximum casualties - answer suicide bombings?

Question

Given that I see little difference between suicide bombers killing civilians and warplanes bombing civilian targets. If these underequipped armies had planes the tactic of suicide bombings would be less prevelant. What do you think?

Answer 1

Wrong.

While I will agree that air power is an awesome force multiplier and has been a staple of US tactics due to it's brutal efficiency, ther are other ways to create large number of military casualties without resorting to suicide bombings.

What makes all the difference is tactics.

Suidice bombing is an underhanded, indiscriminate tactic that is considered as being one of the lowest of the lows in most military circles. But the kicker is that good tactics can do just the same. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Muja'hadeen did not make use of suicide bombers. Instead, they were fighting a guerilla war that the whole might of the Red Army couldn't deal with, and running up a casualty count that was quite disproportionate when you look at the number of resistance fighters and their equipment in comparison to the Soviets'.

Answer 2

Although having warplanes may reduce suicide bombings, you must first understand the issues you're talking about. Suicide bombings are INTENDED to cause civilian casualties. Suicide bombing is not a legitimate military tactic. It is used by TERRORISTS, not amies. So, supplying terrorists (not an army) with military aircraft to use for bombing might reduce the number of suicide bombings, it would actually result in MORE casualties, because they could simply use aircraft to blow up grocery stores, places of religious worship, and whatever else they want. Also, suicide bombers are most often Islamic militants and extremists, who believe they are serving a holy purpose, and automatically going to heaven (becoming martyrs).

Answer 3

i'm with you, bombing is bombing. i'm pretty certain that suicide bombings would also go down if these "armies" were equipped with planes and such...though one case comes to mind right away that might prove me wrong and that is the japanese kamikaze pilots during ww2. however not every plane was used this way.
now granted there are some other, moral? issues with how suicide bomb(er)s are "made" versus a factory stamping them out, but thats a different argument i think. a bomb that hits a non-military target, accident or on purpose, is "terrorism" - though i really don't like that word, its very poorly defined -
and a bomb that hits a military target is more or less just as sad and heartbreaking but at least one can say thats to be expected or something like that...i don't know, i have a hard time justifying either one as being moral, but its generally acceptable to target military stuff.

also, if the "terrorists" where better equipped they probably would not be going after civilian targets as much, with limited resources and arms you are more or less forced into choosing softer targets or having a pretty low "success" rate.

Answer 4

Warplanes that are given strict instruction to TRY to avoid hitting civilian targets and suicide bombers who specifically go after civilians are not the same. Are you aware that most suicide bombers are children and young people not the big shots of Hamas and Hesbollah. They teach little kids in school about hatred and the dirty Americans and Jews and then when these kids get a little older they send them out to kill themselves snuffing out their young lives. This is decency? Only an Arab could conceive of such a plan because they have no regard for life and have been killing since they began several thousand years ago. And all this, in the name of Allah.

Answer 5

It sounds like you need to pay closer attention.

First of all - nobody is going to sortie a $50 million dollar airplane and drop a $100,000 bomb just to kill some civilians. Doing this is a waste of resources. The simple fact that Israel is using PGMs is proof positive that they are attempting to limit civilian casualties.

If Israel were attempting to kill civilians then the death toll in Lebanon would be over 100,000 by now.

You really need to sit down and consider the details - and ignore the hype from people with political agendas.

Answer 6

Wrong. Come to the US. do the talk show circuit, Oprah etc, whine about how they are oppressed and need help.

They'll get donations and free legal counsel to sue the US for shafting them.

Good thing they haven't caught on yet.

Answer 7

exceedingly much each and all the "Muslim Extremists" are below the course and administration of the CIA and/or Pakistan ISI and/or the Saudi secret Police and/or Israeli Mossad...have been with the aid of fact the 1980's. observe maximum folk of the bombs going off in Iraq are "distant detonated automobile bombs". Gee i ask your self the place they have been given the guidance and kit for that? the folk who're unaware of the reality of Islam will in all risk by no ability "get it" except they open their hearts and God is keen.

Answer 8

No, that's not a good idea. The pilots might not die and thus miss out on their 72 virgins.

Answer 9

I agree...