[Balding_Eagle]

I suppose it depends on to what length one is willing (and able) to go to harm civilians.

Based on your posts on this thread, you're a bit of a slow learner.

It has to do with other factors far more. Think WWII.

We're damn lucky we killed those hundreds of thousands of civilians. Damn lucky.

Real men made the decision to do that, and it's worrisome that we have very few of them anymore.

[Leaning Right]

I usually refrain from conversations with those who resort to insults, but this is an interesting topic, so I'll give it a try.

You mentioned “other factors” in your post. I'm curious what you meant by that.

And in my previous post, let me be a bit more clear. Deliberate attacks on civilians, for the purpose of breaking morale, have a mixed success rate. That's the very best that can be said, whether the attacks were from the air or from the ground.

Now if you're talking about targeting civilian industrial areas, that's a different story. And if you're talking about destroying entire populations (Hiroshima, etc), again that's a different story.

[Leaning Right]

Permit me to add one more thing to my post #17.

Consider the London Blitz of 1940. Initially the Germans targeted British military and industrial bases, particularly the RAF airfields. This put the RAF on the ropes.

Then Hitler ordered a change: bomb British cities to break morale (this was also done as a reprisal for the RAF bombing of a German city, which might have been accidental).

That was huge error on Hitler's part. The Blitz, and the later V1’s and V2’s, did nothing to break British morale. It was a waste of resources, and lives.