People, factories, and houses are all clustered together. If loads of bombs were dumped in a vacant place near the built-up area, but far enough away to avoid killing anyone, the enemy would first ridicule the poor marksmanship. If the same thing is done the second or third time, the enemy would know that he has nothing to fear, that we're trying to scare them but not do ny harm.
The only area that could be wiped off the map would be the cities, that's where the people are. Wiping an area off the map where there are no people would just be plowing their fields for them.
2006-09-26 10:10:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Occasionally a country will make it public knowledge that they are "testing" a weapon system (and what the results are) or that their military is performing training in the form of "war games". I would see both these strong hints as sort of fulfilling your criteria of making a loud bang without hurting anyone. And these two methods of sending a signal while still appearing free of malice have been known to be quite effective under certain circumstances.
2006-09-26 17:06:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by EC-S 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No
It's all about fertilizer. The Earth needs a lot of bodies to stay green and grow the food for all those 3rd world places.
You stop the war your messing with the economy
Go big Red Go
2006-09-26 17:03:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Environmentally friendly weapons mean you kill the people without damaging property, not the other way about.
2006-09-26 17:02:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by dot&carryone. 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That was the Clinton technique that brought us Osama's airplanes to the USA
2006-09-26 17:03:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by united9198 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
People are everywhere & how serious will anyone take us if
we never hit the target or what they think is target.
2006-09-26 17:01:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No that would be morally wrong. We cant just kill someone because they dont agree with us.
2006-09-26 17:05:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No - that's why we created the term...."collateral damage"
2006-09-26 17:00:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by gatesfam@swbell.net 4
·
0⤊
0⤋