• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Putin's carpet bombing of civilians going to work in Ukraine?

They would not have enough trying to perform carpet bombing missions. The "big bomber" is a very fragile, easy to hit and take out target these days. Even the US only uses its strategic bombers to fly conventional bomber missions in combat where they are assured that the enemy has no means at all to reach them. True carpet bombing would expose those bombers unnecessarily. Far better to stand off with them and have them launch missiles and the like.

Between strategic bombers and heavy tactical bombers like the Su-24 and -34, they have more than 400 bombers. That’s easily equal to a WW2 carpet bombing raid in both aircraft and bomb load.
 
Between strategic bombers and heavy tactical bombers like the Su-24 and -34, they have more than 400 bombers. That’s easily equal to a WW2 carpet bombing raid in both aircraft and bomb load.
A raid yes...but a campaign...doubt it. To what end? Would it accomplish at lower cost more or even the same result the Russians are accomplishing with their combined missile strikes, artillery salvos, drone strikes, naval gunnery etc. The Russian problem is not causing damage using stand off assets. Their problem is that you cannot take and hold territory that way and you can't do it with carpet bombing either. All you can do is destroy stuff. Knocking a few strategic bombers trying to perform a carpet bombing campaign out of the air would drive the Russians back to what they have been doing right quick.

You need ground assets to take and hold territory no matter how much destruction you cause on the ground using air assets and no matter what type of air asset you use. So if your strategy is stand off destruction you want to accomplish that as painlessly as possible because you STILL really don't have anything after you have destroyed everything you can destroy.

Remember, Putin backed into this particular kind of warfare. This has been and is a war of conquest. Putin wanted the territory and assets of Ukraine which would have given him the sort of strangle hold he has on fossil fuels to some parts of the world on grains (food) to some parts of the world. He wanted that territory and assets intact so that he could begin to profit from them and use them as a geopolitical weapon as quickly as possible. This was Putin trying to take or control Ukraine's assets just as he has for two decades only using other means. That did not happen as Putin was unable to take Kyiv and decapitate the government. Now Putin is stuck in a standard fare, 20th century type war of conquest complete with massive damage, civilian casualties, war crimes and lots and lots of cost in lives and treasure for both sides.....Hitler all over again. Even Hitler had a 20th century version of what Putin really wanted as a military tactic in quickly subduing Ukraine. Hitler's version was called blitzkrieg.

Laughable that Putin is still trying to sell the denazification argument for this war. Denazification had nothing to do with it. Donbas has nothing to do with it. Treatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine had nothing to do with it. Ukraine joining NATO had nothing to do with it. Ukraine joining EU had something to do with it but was still secondary to Putin's desire to take and/or control Ukraine assets and use them for his own purposes.
 
A raid yes...but a campaign...doubt it. To what end? Would it accomplish at lower cost more or even the same result the Russians are accomplishing with their combined missile strikes, artillery salvos, drone strikes, naval gunnery etc. The Russian problem is not causing damage using stand off assets. Their problem is that you cannot take and hold territory that way and you can't do it with carpet bombing either. All you can do is destroy stuff. Knocking a few strategic bombers trying to perform a carpet bombing campaign out of the air would drive the Russians back to what they have been doing right quick.

You need ground assets to take and hold territory no matter how much destruction you cause on the ground using air assets and no matter what type of air asset you use. So if your strategy is stand off destruction you want to accomplish that as painlessly as possible because you STILL really don't have anything after you have destroyed everything you can destroy.

Remember, Putin backed into this particular kind of warfare. This has been and is a war of conquest. Putin wanted the territory and assets of Ukraine which would have given him the sort of strangle hold he has on fossil fuels to some parts of the world on grains (food) to some parts of the world. He wanted that territory and assets intact so that he could begin to profit from them and use them as a geopolitical weapon as quickly as possible. This was Putin trying to take or control Ukraine's assets just as he has for two decades only using other means. That did not happen as Putin was unable to take Kyiv and decapitate the government. Now Putin is stuck in a standard fare, 20th century type war of conquest complete with massive damage, civilian casualties, war crimes and lots and lots of cost in lives and treasure for both sides.....Hitler all over again. Even Hitler had a 20th century version of what Putin really wanted as a military tactic in quickly subduing Ukraine. Hitler's version was called blitzkrieg.

Laughable that Putin is still trying to sell the denazification argument for this war. Denazification had nothing to do with it. Donbas has nothing to do with it. Treatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine had nothing to do with it. Ukraine joining NATO had nothing to do with it. Ukraine joining EU had something to do with it but was still secondary to Putin's desire to take and/or control Ukraine assets and use them for his own purposes.

I didn’t say it was a good idea. I rightfully stated they had the capability to conduct carpet bombing.
 
Back
Top Bottom