356

submitted 3 months ago by kali_fornication@lemmy.world to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Zephorah@discuss.online 39 points 3 months ago

The man is a sponge to any idea around him. Like an empty, soulless megaphone waiting for someone to shout through it.

Every time he blasts Truth Social about the insurrection act, I’m pretty sure it’s Stephen Miller whispering into the megaphone.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Nukes? The scary thing about Greenland is that the whole place is basically a handful of small towns. The 10 largest towns represent over 95% of the population. Forget nukes. A dozen large conventional bombs would be enough to genocide the Greenland population.

[+] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works -14 points 3 months ago

That assumes that bombing is effective, accurate and deadly, which is not the case.

Bombs have a 20% accuracy rate, where "on target" is about 2 football fields around the target lol.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

Bombs have a 20% accuracy rate, where “on target” is about 2 football fields around the target lol.

Since when, WW2? And the type of bomb I was referring are things like this.

It would take ten of those to wipe out the Greenlanders as thoroughly as the historic genocide of the Native Americans.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Per your link: The MOAB was used once, has a 1 mile blast radius, and based on reports killed, depending on who you ask, "only terrorists - 90 of them" "a bunch of people including teachers and students" and "no one"

Hardly definitive. Also, a 1 mile bomb killing fewer than 100 people? Greenland has 52k people at a population density of 0.1/mile²

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

The MOAB was used to destroy a tunnel complex in Afghanistan. It killed around 100 people in a well fortified underground network. Imagine what it could do to a city or large town.

Your population density argument is bad, a third of the island lives in Nuuk.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

And was dropped approximately 100-200 meters (ie 1-2 football fields) off target.

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 6 points 3 months ago

Being off target is irrelevant when your margin of error is only 12% of the blast radius.

And most large area bombings aren't a single bomb. Enough ordinance is typically dropped that it equals 10-20 MOABs.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

And which conflict was resolved successfully by bombing?

Certainly Afghanistan was famously not resolved by aerial attacks, and the best result we have here so far is "its OK to miss with a $170,000 single bomb if it allegedly, unconfirmedly, kills between 0 and 90 people"

Not to mention this is a single data point and one debatably "accurate" hit does not suddenly make all air ordinance accurate.

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 3 months ago

There's an old saying that 'close only counts for horse shoes and hand grenades'. Bombs follow the same rule.

In this scenario the bombing would be solely for genociding the population, which wasn't the goal in Afghanistan. Accuracy is irrelevant when your goal is total destruction.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean that's what I'm saying - most bombs miss by more than is effective. Close counts for a hand grenade if you don't throw it in totally the wrong direction.

Edit: ...and so far the only counter argument is "once we dropped a single bomb that was too big to miss - a decade ago."

you dont have to convince me, of course, I just remain unconvinced

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 3 months ago

Your entire point is irrelevant to the discussion, though.

If the goal was to only kill enemy combatants without harming civilians, it would be relevant, but that's not what's being discussed. It doesn't matter if the bomb is a little inaccurate if your goal is the total destruction of a city. You just keep dropping them until the job is done.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah, but I'm saying it doesn't work. Accuracy is only one part of it - but also you can't destroy a city without accuracy.

London, Dresden, etc have all been bombed for years at a time and still stand. I think you're over estimating the efficacy of bombs.

[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

https://science.howstuffworks.com/moab.htm

Actually is has an accuracy of about 8 meters. Is it GPS guided.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

your link is broken but the howstuffworks page is quoting from the Wikipedia, which sources the GPS guidance to an anonymous post on globalsecurity.org - itsself not a bad source - however the method of delivery is they open the back of the aircraft, push the bomb on a wooden pallet out the door, wait a few seconds, activate a parachute, wait a few seconds for the gps to kick in, whereby "fins" guide it to its location.

You'll forgive me for being skeptical about 8m precision on a remote-controlled parachute from 35,000 feet at 400mph using rudders

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

You need to improve your basic logic skills.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago

I'll happily concede if you've got a source?

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 13 points 3 months ago

Sure, but may I suggest: More bombs

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Sure, just name a conflict that was resolved by bombing, with the exception of Hiroshima/Nagasaki- which im not counting because those were nukes, and Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 7 points 3 months ago

The comment just said that you could genocide most of the population. Not that it would resolve a conflict

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

A fair correction. I'll counter than the USA dropped more bombs than WW2 total on Vietnam, including dropping 100,000 tons of bombs on a 40 mile² area and a) didn't kill everyone, b) didn't even bomb every settlement in that area and c) lost.

[-] Saapas@piefed.zip 4 points 3 months ago

Vietnam's population was a lot larger and the population was way less concentrated. Tiny concentrated population is a much easier matter to "deal with"

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

eh, I still don't buy it.

WW2 was gonna be over by the second Christmas, Ukraine was a month-long special operation, etc...

Do you have an example on a similar population/campaign?

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that some American soldier has no idea of the concept "different language" and that place names may sound and mean something different.

this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026

356 points (98.6% liked)

Greentext

8162 readers

425 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works