most weapons destroy shit in an area of 100square meter the most but taking the size of a country you need a million bombs or rockets to cause significant damage

why is nobody building and/or using largerweapons.

we can build weapons that fly 300km maybe 1000 kilometer the most, we can hit a plane in the sky but look how small a plane is

where are the weapons that level everything on a radius of 50square miles
why isnt shit like that being built

even the 9/11 attack they had a hard time to level these buildings and the world trade center is a small part of New york

next question, what would be needed to build weapons that can literally destroy a cty like new york or london besides nuclear bombs

These days it’s about targeted attacks with minimum civilian casualties

>>507375077 (OP)
>big bomb
>blows up the entire area
>makes traversing through said area after more difficult
>pointlessly kills civilians who aren't fighting you
>any civilians killed will probably have family members who now want to fight (more fights)
>better to make smaller targetted bombs

>>507375077 (OP)
>level everything
just use dirty bombs, biological or chemical weapons to render the area uninhabitable

>>507375077 (OP)
You must never confuse the need for war with a love of violence. The revolution is not a dinner party.

>War is not 'violence' and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose.
>The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force.
>The moral decision is taken beforehand the war is simply an implementation of that moral decision

i call bullshit on war
also why are never government buildungs destroyed
we have wars all over the place but the only thing targeted are old ass residential buildings but never a presidential palace or any important government buildings
they level a residential building with 10 apartment where a bunch of low live lives and than they call this war?
seriously we cant do better thanthat
there have been wars since humans are on this planet and in 2025 no country can cause significant damage to another country
maybe israel by killing children, is that really the top tier of warefare?

if i would have to say anything, i would cause so much dmage to another coutnry that this country would get whipped off every map
even in places like syria, 99% of buildings are in tct even after a war, same in iraq libanon
the most modern weapons even have a hard time to level huts in africa

i think war is just fake all together, considering if you let your stove running and this shit burns up causes more damage than a bomb

>>507375077 (OP)
The point of war is to capture the opposing side's wealth (mostly intact.)
A weapon too destructive defeats the purpose. People dont invade worthless landmasses.

>>507377296
what wealth?
all the wealth is owned by banks and is sitting on bank accounts which are made up by numbers and backed by nothing

so why send bombs anyways if not for the ultimate destruction

iran has 500 fighter jets, i would send all of them at once to israel and level that shit in a day
maybe they are capable of downing a few planes but so what, if 90% of them go through nothing of telaviv is left
and if you take israel, what wealth are they gaining by killing hundreds of children?
are they fighting a war over diapers?

if im in a war with another country, i would tell the fucking news paper that im planning to launch x missiles tonight
they would not hear me coming if im serious about war

so the whole thing makes no fucking sense and why is never a western politician being murderd in a war?
for example selensky, why is this mothrfucker still alive but 10000s of soldiers are being murdered
why is nobody attacking the real evil, presidents ministers and shit like that?