Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Tamas]

Has terror bombing ever worked? Seems cruel and futile.

I don't think there is a universal rule to it, it should be recognised that unfortunately it can work at times, but definitely not at this scale the Russians are doing -and they would not be justified to be doing it at any scale-.

[celedhring]

The only time I can think bombing civilians has ever made a meaningful difference in war it involved nukes. And that's probably a WWIII moment if it ever happens in Ukraine.

[Josquius]

The only time I can think bombing civilians has ever made a meaningful difference in war it involved nukes.

Or so the official version says.
The reality is more debatable and evidence for me suggests no.

[Tamas]

Are we sure the Germans civilians would not had put up a much more fierce resistance to the occupying Western forces if the futility of fighting on wasn't demonstrated by their destroyed cities?

Or that Sherman's campaign of destruction didn't help end the ACW?

[Threviel]

Or that Sherman's campaign of destruction didn't help end the ACW?

A land army moving like locusts over a territory is very different from a bombing campaign.

No doubt that if a Russian land army moved over Kyiv Sherman style it would adversely affect the Ukrainian war effort.

[Sheilbh]

It's tragic for the causalities but am I the only one seeing this as desperate lashing out? These drones could be aiming at military targets and critical infrastructure, instead they are used to bolster Ukrainian's hatred and determination against Russians.

I agree.

But I also wonder if they have good military targets? I've mentioned before but I am almost certain that Western cyber-intelligence agencies are helping scrub the internet for Ukraine because it is astonishing that with all of the videos and clips being shared often on social media how little really gives any sense of Ukrainian forces' position or make-up or anything like that. No doubt partly that's a 21st century "loose lips sink ships" discipline among Ukrainians and their military but even so nothing seems to get out.

Ukraine is getting help from Western intelligence forces and will be getting intel from civilians in occupied areas (especially I imagine in the areas where there's also reports of partisans) - Russia's intelligence agencies are, I'd suggest, less competent and probably not getting much help from the civilian population. We've seen them be taken by surprise a few times. So I wonder if part of it is actually that they just don't have the same sort of military targets because they don't really know where Ukrainian forces are?

[Duque de Bragança]

Has terror bombing ever worked? Seems cruel and futile.

I don't think there is a universal rule to it, it should be recognised that unfortunately it can work at times, but definitely not at this scale the Russians are doing -and they would not be justified to be doing it at any scale-.

Rotterdam or Belgrade (Operation Punishment) during WWII come to mind.

[Josquius]

It's tragic for the causalities but am I the only one seeing this as desperate lashing out? These drones could be aiming at military targets and critical infrastructure, instead they are used to bolster Ukrainian's hatred and determination against Russians.

I agree.

But I also wonder if they have good military targets? I've mentioned before but I am almost certain that Western cyber-intelligence agencies are helping scrub the internet for Ukraine because it is astonishing that with all of the videos and clips being shared often on social media how little really gives any sense of Ukrainian forces' position or make-up or anything like that. No doubt partly that's a 21st century "loose lips sink ships" discipline among Ukrainians and their military but even so nothing seems to get out.

Ukraine is getting help from Western intelligence forces and will be getting intel from civilians in occupied areas (especially I imagine in the areas where there's also reports of partisans) - Russia's intelligence agencies are, I'd suggest, less competent and probably not getting much help from the civilian population. We've seen them be taken by surprise a few times. So I wonder if part of it is actually that they just don't have the same sort of military targets because they don't really know where Ukrainian forces are?

Its quite hard to move power plants and other-such infrastructure targets however. Yet still despite Russia stating thats what they want to hit they're instead just hitting random blocks of flats. Evidence does seem good terror is what they're going for.

[alfred russel]

The only time I can think bombing civilians has ever made a meaningful difference in war it involved nukes. And that's probably a WWIII moment if it ever happens in Ukraine.

2004 bombings in Spain?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Are we sure the Germans civilians would not had put up a much more fierce resistance to the occupying Western forces if the futility of fighting on wasn't demonstrated by their destroyed cities?

Or that Sherman's campaign of destruction didn't help end the ACW?

Let's be careful not to adopt Lost Cause talking points. Sherman's march was conducted under relatively strict military discipline. He knew that by working without a supply line and making his army reliant on forage, he was going to devastate the local economy, but there were actually strict orders on behavior--foragers were not allowed to enter private homes, use threatening or abusive language to the residents, and were generally advised to attempt to focus forage efforts on wealthy plantations (with the understanding that the needs of supply meant they could not restrict their forage solely to such targets.)

Sherman was not massacring his way from Atlanta to Savannah, it was all overseen by officers, and misbehavior or mistreatment of the residents was punished. They also had strict orders to target economic infrastructure but not basic survival infrastructure--they destroyed 300 miles of railroads but they didn't destroy food crop fields or food stores, and only foraged what was needed for 10 days supply.

Even in Sherman's day the idea of just bombing an occupied civilian house to terrorize, would have been seen as unconscionable behavior.

[Berkut]

Kamikaze drone?

WTF is that? Isn't that just a missile?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean the word missile has a pretty vague English language meaning, but in the more common understanding a missile in a military sense is a self-propelled weapon propelled towards a target, with or without guidance. A kamikaze drone is a small aircraft piloted into a target and then detonated.

The main operational differences would be missiles travel orders of magnitude faster, and are usually not manually piloted mid-flight (they may have auto-correction and advanced guidance systems), missiles also at least right now are generally going to be larger and more expensive, so will deliver bigger payloads. The small drones are much slower and more apt to being destroyed in flight, and deliver smaller payloads.

On a meta level the lines can get blurred, like you could argue with some of the advanced guided missiles, "Is that a missile or an aircraft?" Or what have you, or you could argue that all flying devices are potential missiles if one were so inclined.

[Sheilbh]

Not sure - but I know that earlier in the war the UK was providing drones t Ukraine that we're described as "kamikaze drones" - so maybe the same as that? I think they were the "loitering munitions" but I have no idea what any of this means.

[Berkut]

Are we sure the Germans civilians would not had put up a much more fierce resistance to the occupying Western forces if the futility of fighting on wasn't demonstrated by their destroyed cities?

Or that Sherman's campaign of destruction didn't help end the ACW?

Let's be careful not to adopt Lost Cause talking points. Sherman's march was conducted under relatively strict military discipline. He knew that by working without a supply line and making his army reliant on forage, he was going to devastate the local economy, but there were actually strict orders on behavior--foragers were not allowed to enter private homes, use threatening or abusive language to the residents, and were generally advised to attempt to focus forage efforts on wealthy plantations (with the understanding that the needs of supply meant they could not restrict their forage solely to such targets.)

Sherman was not massacring his way from Atlanta to Savannah, it was all overseen by officers, and misbehavior or mistreatment of the residents was punished. They also had strict orders to target economic infrastructure but not basic survival infrastructure--they destroyed 300 miles of railroads but they didn't destroy food crop fields or food stores, and only foraged what was needed for 10 days supply.

Even in Sherman's day the idea of just bombing an occupied civilian house to terrorize, would have been seen as unconscionable behavior.

IIRC, someone actually went back and just looked at reported civilian fatalities for the areas that Sherman traversed from Tennessee and onwards.

Of course, it is wartime, so records are not great. But it's not like he was marching across Siberia. People report deaths, write death certificates, etc., etc. 

There was no increase in reported deaths to any civilians during Sherman's march. None. Some sources have reported 100 civilian deaths, but nobody knows where that number comes from, and appears to include civilians deaths during the burning of Atlanta.

Sherman tore up a lot of railroad, and burned a lot of supplies and property (like cotton and such). 

Drives me nuts how common it is that people have bought into the story of a raving Sherman preying on poor Scarlett.

[The Brain]

Ze Shermans haf alvays had a poor reputation.