If the people can't eat- how will they fight?
2007-01-31 15:19:24 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I would suggest a propane bomb. It explodes and sucks oxygen out of the area. Resulting in everyone soffacating. Nice and clean.
2007-01-31 15:40:05 · answer #1 · answered by brewer82 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let's just say, that an army, in this day and time, for all intents
and purposes starved a foe, what do you think the press would
do with this? INHUMARITAN TATICS PERFORMED ON THE
LOCALS, STARVED, or, WHOLE TOWN IS HUNGRY, HOW
WILL THEY SURVIVE? ., since the press is up our tails, there is no way that we are gonna to keep these individuals from getting the required daily nutritional supplements. heck they eat better than the guys in the field. now they can cut off supplies in the
theater, but if they are a prisoner, they have to be fed.
2007-01-31 23:49:54 · answer #2 · answered by barrbou214 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then again, people that are starving, and hopeless can become a lot stronger than they originally were, using all of their remaining strength in uprisings as they will be desperate. Also, the army would be considered more important so the innocent civilians would starve to death before the army is weak enough to stop fighting.
2007-01-31 23:25:45 · answer #3 · answered by tsbski 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lol, you must feel clever thinking up that idea..
i dont mean to sound offensive.. just being humorous...
though it may strike you as a smart-as* military strategy that would be sickly hilarious if implemented...
It already has.
In fact, its the only defense Russia has. Its the only defense Russia has really needed in the past 2,000 years.
After the French Revolution, Napoleon tried to attack Russia to gain support as the new dictator....
However... Napoleon tried to squeeze in the attack just before winter..
they didnt take into consideration that Russia may just retreat back into their country, set everything on fire including food, shelter, heat, and wood to produce heat...
and yea, thats exactly what they did.
Russia lured Napoleon far into their country...
set EVERYTHING except grass on fire...
Then it snowed.
And Napoleons soldiers had very little clothing, they had no food, they had no shelter, and they had no fire...
THEY WERE SCREWED!!!
Napoleon survived along with like 13 other people out of their like friggen 20,000 foot soldiers...
2007-01-31 23:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by Corey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler starved the Jews, they fought anyway.
Look, sonny, when man is fed up enough he fights and wins whether he's hungry or not.
If hunger is added to it, he'll turn into an animal and rip the guts out of the enemy.
In fact if he's well fed he's less likely to retaliate.
2007-02-01 00:05:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The best method is disease, as the US proved in it's conquest of the native Americans. Of course, the trick is to infect the enemy with a disease to which you are immune.
2007-01-31 23:28:19 · answer #6 · answered by jhartmann21 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its slow but it worked when fixed fortifications ruled the day as in the middle ages. Armys are too mobile these days and too ruthless for starvation to be an effective weapon. A hungry man in his own land is a formidable soldier as the Viet Cong, and our own Revolutionary war soldiers proved
2007-01-31 23:22:20 · answer #7 · answered by walter_b_marvin 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
well... that's not really war...
and it usually only affects the poor of the country... so many of the poor die and those causing the problems still get food from somewhere...
just like in N. Korea and Iraq under sanctions...
2007-01-31 23:26:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
starvation is a slow process... a method, I don't think the best one though.
2007-01-31 23:23:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it is a good tactic. But not as fun as sending a tactical nuke down a mineshaft.
2007-01-31 23:22:30 · answer #10 · answered by Nate H 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋