[C19fan]

Fine to create specialized units but the problem does the US public have the stomach for major urban conflict against a determined foe.

[Travis McGee]

Just cut off the food and water and wait.

[KC_Lion]

It is called firebombing.

That takes care of that problem.

And an Ass-ton of Artillery.

But then as you say, you need the political will to do such a thing.

[WMarshal]

My proposal for a mega-cities combat unit would consist mostly of bombers dropping cluster and MOAB bombs. War is killing, anything else is just putting American men and boys into a meat grinder. Don’t fight a war until you absolutely have to, and then when you fight to WIN.

[MrEdd]

It is not and never will be time to create a “mega cities” specialized combat unit.

If you have stupid leadership hell bent on preserving some damned collection of buildings rather than just leveling them to preserve the lives of the troops in the field.

The correct answer may be that it is time to create a “rational commander in chief” unit that is authorized to remove a president who issues insane rules of engagement.

Go in to win or don't go.

[ebshumidors]

Starve them or neutron bomb. Dropping buildings creates rubble which makes it even tougher to attack. Stalingrad lesson.

[smokingfrog]

[StAntKnee]

Judge Dredd!!!

[KrisKrinkle]

Nobody seems to have defined “Megacity”.

Of the current Megacities noted in Wikipedia, the smallest seems to cover over 400 square miles and the largest over 5000 square miles. That’s a lot of fire bombing or artillery. I don’t know how much nuking it would be.

[castlebrew]

It’s called the B52.

[Billthedrill]

First, the objective: what do we intend to do with the city in question? The force necessary to attain that objective will conform itself to the requirements. If it's simply obliteration, we already have the technology in spades. And that is the American style of casualty-prevention anyway - during World War II "reconnaissance by artillery" told the enemy that we valued our troops over any preservation of the disputed territory. That attitude cost the world Monte Cassino and I'd do it again a hundred times over were I in charge of the thing.

The reason that sending infantry in to fight in an urban environment has been considered a bad idea in the past is that it really is a bad idea and is likely to be a bad idea in the future, training and equipment regardless. One might as well put red uniforms on the troops and march them in files through a forest full of camouflaged hunters, which come to think of it, has been tried with somewhat disappointing results for the fellows involved. Those were trained infantry, the best in the world. It didn't help.

This isn't even close to a new concept. Siege has been used from time immemorial in this situation for precisely the reasons listed above. It is slow, ugly, and cruel, especially to the civilians entrapped with the combatants. It doesn't always work: Leningrad, for example. But urban combat brought us Stalingrad, also a failure. The bottom line is that war is ugly and cruel and there isn't a great deal to be done to pretty it up.

What we should avoid is announcing to the enemy that we're going to invade an urban area, delay the operation to allow him time to prepare, and then sent in the infantry. That we won the Fallujah engagement anyway is a testimony to the courage and fighting spirit of the men involved. It was not a testament to planning.