-—Problem is we don’t want to fight like WWII.
We firebombed civilian cities and turned areas into smoking rubble. We broke the will of the people long before we broke their armies.-—
It amazes me that most Americans are, at the very least, indifferent to this shameful horror. The ends don’t justify the means.
Modern precision strikes are far superior.
But it worked. How many men on both sides would have died if we invaded Japan? How long would the war have lasted if we hadn't bombed Germany? In that war, the thinking was “You started this, and we will kill every one of you unless you stop NOW!”
I have had the privilege to speak with some of the officers who were involved in the bombing campaign, and whole point was to kill and demilitarize civilians. After action reports suggest the demoralization failed completely (Read some of David Grossman’s work), but they did slow production and transportation of goods. It was a terror tactic. One that honestly didn't have the results that were expected.
Precision strikes are not as great as we are led to believe. You have know what and exactly where you target. Even then, if the target moves it gets away. The myth of surgical strikes is just that. A myth.
Sadly, the only way we could “win” Iran is kill enough of them that they stop. That is not something modern people like to think about, but it is how war was fought in the past. The theory of a quick, clean, war doesn't work if the other side is motivated to keep fighting in the rubble. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan. As many empires have learned before. If we are not willing to do that, then we need to seriously ask “Is this war something we need to do at all?”
Iran is not a direct threat to us. And starting a war because they might have nukes and be able to hit Israel is problematic at best. Preemptive wars are not very justifiable.