Brits Bombed By US Plane

[anon31651765]

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Man, I"m going to be as nice as I can. But do you really realize how hard it is to wage war? All the logistics, the information, the intelligence, the changing battlefields, etc, especially when dealing with a guerilla insurgency in an urban setting.

Ok, I’ll be nice as well.

First of all, there was no urban setting. A pilot who drops a 500 lbs on a city should be tried for war crimes. But let’s not digress…
[/quote]

Right. So all our guys flying missions over the cities of Germany were war criminals? Even though they took out the munitions factories and brought Germany down? You are probably amongst the same cowards that thinks we should not have nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

At the end of the day, there only one question that needs to be asked: How sure does one have to be before pulling the trigger?

And how much do you know about pulling trigger? Have you ever been in a wartime situation? Have you ever, in your life, been in any situation that was kill or be killed? Have you ever seen combat, be it in war or in the streets?

You are judging heavily for someone who’s never been there.

You probably heard of the trial in abstentia of Mario Lozano in Italy, or the hundreds of civilians that get killed “by accident”. I say that it’s no accidents. It’s the extremely high stress levels where survival instinct takes over the brain. You can rattle all you want about how good the US trains its army, but it’s still not gonna cut it. Why should any American soldier risk his life?

Oh, it’s not gonna cut it? So training goes out the window as soon as one gets shaken up? Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You take a boxer, you throw him in a situation where he has to fight. He boxes. He’s not going to flail wildly and off-balanced, because he’s trained so much that it’s second nature. Give him ten shots of whiskey and send him into a fight, and he might be sloppier, but he’s still going to box. Come back in eighty years and fight him, he’s still going to try and box, and he won’t even think about it.

Your training becomes your instinct. This pilot did not get shaken up and drop his payload because he was scared. He did it because he obviously thought it was the right target.

[quote]
I mean, if you have the tiniest bit of a doubt, wouldn’t it make sense to follow Bush’s example and “strike pre-emptively”?[/quote]

You really just don’t know what you’re talking about. You think he had any politics in the brain at that point? You think Bush or “striking preemptively” was anywhere near the forefront in his mind? You’re kidding.

I’ve never seen combat, but I’d imagine it’s like playing football… as soon as that kickoff comes, you don’t hear a damn thing, all you do is move and do what you know you’re supposed to, because you’ve done it so many times in practice.

You are showing that not only do you not know much about war, but little about human nature too.

[lixy]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Right. So all our guys flying missions over the cities of Germany were war criminals? Even though they took out the munitions factories and brought Germany down? [/quote]

In general, no. But you can’t possibly compare Nazi Germany to modern-day Afghanistan.

You are probably amongst the same cowards that thinks we should not have nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I am indeed opposed to the use of nukes. I don’t understand why you use the term coward though.

You are judging heavily for someone who’s never been there.

I am judging heavily because I highly value human life.

[quote]Oh, it’s not gonna cut it? So training goes out the window as soon as one gets shaken up? Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You take a boxer, you throw him in a situation where he has to fight. He boxes. He’s not going to flail wildly and off-balanced, because he’s trained so much that it’s second nature. Give him ten shots of whiskey and send him into a fight, and he might be sloppier, but he’s still going to box. Come back in eighty years and fight him, he’s still going to try and box, and he won’t even think about it.[/quote]

And a soldier is trained to do what exactly?

Kill and survive.

You really just don’t know what you’re talking about. You think he had any politics in the brain at that point? You think Bush or “striking preemptively” was anywhere near the forefront in his mind? You’re kidding.

Actually I’m not. What kind of message did invading Iraq send to soldiers? There were no WMDs and no Saddam-9/11 link despite what Bush and Cheney have been blabbering about for months. Yet, countless are dead, and Washington doesn’t apologize for the mistake.

The message was pretty clear IMHO: We reserve the right to take down anyone that may look like a threat.

Why shouldn’t the army emulate the commander-in-chief?

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
The message was pretty clear IMHO: We reserve the right to take down anyone that may look like a threat.

Why shouldn’t the army emulate the commander-in-chief?[/quote]

and the thread rapidly deteriorates…

All the while we are fighting people who look exactly like civilians, behave like civilians and slaughter civilians.

Mistakes happen.

[anon31651765]

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Right. So all our guys flying missions over the cities of Germany were war criminals? Even though they took out the munitions factories and brought Germany down?

In general, no. But you can’t possibly compare Nazi Germany to modern-day Afghanistan.
[/quote]

Ohhh OK. So they’re war criminals when it’s Afghanistan and their bombing Muslims, but they’re not war criminals when they’re bombing Germans. I see.

And no, douchebag, I’m not comparing them at all. What I am saying is that you stated that every pilot who drops a bomb on a city is a war criminal. Now, you’re rescinding it. Why? Cause you’re full of shit. Funny how you didn’t leave your statement in the quote though. Good job trying to hide it.

You are probably amongst the same cowards that thinks we should not have nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I am indeed opposed to the use of nukes. I don’t understand why you use the term coward though.

Opposed to using nukes now? Or using them in 1945? Don’t dodge my question, and don’t try to lure me into a semantics debate about using a certain term. Answer the damn question.

You are judging heavily for someone who’s never been there.

I am judging heavily because I highly value human life.

So do I. But do you think that pilot doesn’t? War is war. War means fighting, fighting means killing. If that had hit Muslims, you would have cried about that. But being as it hit men who live under the Union Jack, all of a sudden you have a political point to make? Please.

Oh, it’s not gonna cut it? So training goes out the window as soon as one gets shaken up? Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You take a boxer, you throw him in a situation where he has to fight. He boxes. He’s not going to flail wildly and off-balanced, because he’s trained so much that it’s second nature. Give him ten shots of whiskey and send him into a fight, and he might be sloppier, but he’s still going to box. Come back in eighty years and fight him, he’s still going to try and box, and he won’t even think about it.

And a soldier is trained to do what exactly?

Kill and survive.

But not to kill indiscrinately. Especially fighter pilots, because of their intellignece, the information available to them. How many fighter pilots break down and offload their bombs on innocents all the time on instinct? Dude, there’s not even a historical precedent for your argument, you’re just making this shit up.

You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?

[quote]
You really just don’t know what you’re talking about. You think he had any politics in the brain at that point? You think Bush or “striking preemptively” was anywhere near the forefront in his mind? You’re kidding.

Actually I’m not. What kind of message did invading Iraq send to soldiers? There were no WMDs and no Saddam-9/11 link despite what Bush and Cheney have been blabbering about for months. Yet, countless are dead, and Washington doesn’t apologize for the mistake.

The message was pretty clear IMHO: We reserve the right to take down anyone that may look like a threat.

Why shouldn’t the army emulate the commander-in-chief?[/quote]

BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW MEN THINK!!! No fucking soldier in the field thinks, “Well, being as Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq preemptively without proper regard for a Declaration of War and false intelligence from a crappy CIA, and even though they may or may not have known how bad this would get, they still invaded before Iraq struck us or any of our allied nations, so that gives me historical precedence to pull the trigger and bomb this van.”

That’s fucking retarded. Politics go out the window when you’re fighting a war. You think that pilot wanted that on his conscience, but now he’s validating it by comparing it to our foreign policy??

You know what’s sad, is I agree with your politics. I’m anti-war and anti-Bush, and I have been since he got in office. I believe he had many other motives other than what he told us, and I bet he knowingly lied. However, people who are like you, and make uneducated arguments and have no debating ability, only hurt the cause of the Left.

[Gkhan]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?
[/quote]

Interesting point…

The reasoning behind this thread baffles me. Lixy is saying that it is wrong to drop bombs from such a high altitude in a high tech piece of equipment like a fighter bomber (while the enemy straps bombs on their backs and blow up civilians and no threads are started in opposition of that fact) because innocents may be harmed in a battle.

Well, if a guy’s in a fighter bomber thousands of feet in the air, away from enemy fire, what the hell does he have to be “afraid” of? Lixy said the pilot dropped the bomb on the brits due to stress of battle? What stress would you have in this situation? What the hell is he talking about?

[Gkhan]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
"No fucking soldier in the field thinks, “Well, being as Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq preemptively without proper regard for a Declaration of War and false intelligence from a crappy CIA, and even though they may or may not have known how bad this would get, they still invaded before Iraq struck us or any of our allied nations, so that gives me historical precedence to pull the trigger and bomb this van.”

CLASSIC !

[lixy]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And no, douchebag, I’m not comparing them at all. What I am saying is that you stated that every pilot who drops a bomb on a city is a war criminal. Now, you’re rescinding it. Why? [/quote]

Cause the Germans were invading countries. Cause they had factories building weapons.

Big big difference.

Opposed to using nukes now? Or using them in 1945? Don’t dodge my question, and don’t try to lure me into a semantics debate about using a certain term. Answer the damn question.

Totally opposed. If the Japs had nukes, you can bet your ass that you’ll have never dropped those bombs.

So do I. But do you think that pilot doesn’t? War is war. War means fighting, fighting means killing. If that had hit Muslims, you would have cried about that. But being as it hit men who live under the Union Jack, all of a sudden you have a political point to make? Please.

No you moron. It’s got nothing to do with their nationality or faith.

I don’t put soldiers on the same level as civilians. Soldiers sign to play with fire, if they get burned, it’s not the same as a 10-year old kid spending his life without legs because somebody hit the wrong button. Clear?

But not to kill indiscrinately. Especially fighter pilots, because of their intellignece, the information available to them. How many fighter pilots break down and offload their bombs on innocents all the time on instinct? Dude, there’s not even a historical precedent for your argument, you’re just making this shit up.

I know. But dropping a 500 pounds bombs without being certain about the recipient sounds very fishy.

You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?

No. But he certainly didn’t bother checking who’s down, did he?

BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW MEN THINK!!!

Maybe not on the individual level. But as a whole, the US army seem to be exhibiting an overwhelmingly “pre-emptive” tendency. The figure speak for themselves. By the most conservative accounts, deaths of civilians are at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the soldiers.

[anon31651765]

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And no, douchebag, I’m not comparing them at all. What I am saying is that you stated that every pilot who drops a bomb on a city is a war criminal. Now, you’re rescinding it. Why?

Cause the Germans were invading countries. Cause they had factories building weapons.

Big big difference.
[/quote]

You said “A pilot who drops a 500 lbs on a city should be tried for war crimes. But let’s not digress…”

But now apparently they have to morally justified, in your eyes, in which case they’re not war criminals. You contradict yourself so much it’s unbelievable… you should get into politics.

Opposed to using nukes now? Or using them in 1945? Don’t dodge my question, and don’t try to lure me into a semantics debate about using a certain term. Answer the damn question.

Totally opposed. If the Japs had nukes, you can bet your ass that you’ll have never dropped those bombs.

But they didn’t. We invented them first, and it saved many, many American lives. That don’t matter to you of course- the way you hate America, you’d probably have been glad to see folded flags being handed out… after all, we’re the oppressors, so we got it coming, right?

So do I. But do you think that pilot doesn’t? War is war. War means fighting, fighting means killing. If that had hit Muslims, you would have cried about that. But being as it hit men who live under the Union Jack, all of a sudden you have a political point to make? Please.

No you moron. It’s got nothing to do with their nationality or faith.

I don’t put soldiers on the same level as civilians. Soldiers sign to play with fire, if they get burned, it’s not the same as a 10-year old kid spending his life without legs because somebody hit the wrong button. Clear?

So then why are you crying? Friendly fire happens in war. The British troops got hit with friendly fire. That has nothing to do with the competence of our pilots. Your entire premise for this argument is retarded and invalid.

But not to kill indiscrinately. Especially fighter pilots, because of their intellignece, the information available to them. How many fighter pilots break down and offload their bombs on innocents all the time on instinct? Dude, there’s not even a historical precedent for your argument, you’re just making this shit up.

I know. But dropping a 500 pounds bombs without being certain about the recipient sounds very fishy.

See above. It’s a fucking war!!!. No war in history has been fought without an instance of friendly fire. Again, your complete ignorance is showing. Maybe you need to read a book besides the Quaran.

You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?

No. But he certainly didn’t bother checking who’s down, did he?

No, I guess he saw people and dropped bombs. Cause fighter pilots are that dumb. You don’t know the details, or the process of identifying friendlies from enemies. So, really, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[quote]
BECAUSE THAT’S NOT HOW MEN THINK!!!

Maybe not on the individual level. But as a whole, the US army seem to be exhibiting an overwhelmingly “pre-emptive” tendency. The figure speak for themselves. By the most conservative accounts, deaths of civilians are at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the soldiers.[/quote]

THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!!

I am done with you, it’s very clear who has won this exchange. You dodge every point I make, and counter with something unrelated. Learn some history, and learn to argue. Until then, Shut the fuck up.

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?

No. But he certainly didn’t bother checking who’s down, did he?
[/quote]

How do you know he didn’t check? It was an error, kind of like what happens when a terrorist is strapping a bomb to his back and it goes off and a dozen or so of the terrorists are killed by their own bomb.

[lixy]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
But now apparently they have to morally justified, in your eyes, in which case they’re not war criminals. You contradict yourself so much it’s unbelievable… you should get into politics. [/quote]

Don’t be stupid. There are of course exceptions where dropping a bomb on an arms factory that happen to be in a city is justified.

Dropping half a ton of explosives on a city and crushing babies under the rubble is a war crime. I didn’t make it up. Go read the Geneva convention.

But they didn’t. We invented them first, and it saved many, many American lives. That don’t matter to you of course- the way you hate America, you’d probably have been glad to see folded flags being handed out… after all, we’re the oppressors, so we got it coming, right?

From my understanding of history, the Japs were about to capitulate anyway. The bombs were a power showdown, nothing less. And if you ask me, between an dead soldier and a radioactive baby, I’ll chose the former everytime, regardless of the color of his/her uniform.

So then why are you crying? Friendly fire happens in war. The British troops got hit with friendly fire. That has nothing to do with the competence of our pilots. Your entire premise for this argument is retarded and invalid.

I’m not crying. The level of “collateral damage” in this whole war is far too high for my taste, and I’m letting it known. My theory is that it’s due to the incompetence of the new recruits and the “nevermind-it’s-just-an-Arab” attitude.

I might be wrong.

See above. It’s a fucking war!!!. No war in history has been fought without an instance of friendly fire. Again, your complete ignorance is showing.

It’s not the kind of war where you can drop 500 lbs bombs!

It’s a guerilla. Period.

You really think that guy said, “Awww fuck it they may be friendlies, but I’m scared.”?

THAT’S NOT THE POINT!!!

Maybe not the one you want to make - or want to hear - but I started the thread. If you don’t like the point being discussed, look elsewhere.

[Tokoya]

On the topic of dropping things on to civilians:

A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province…

Dixy, does this qualify as a “war crime” because muslims were upset that the balls were bearing the name of Allah?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

[hedo]

FI you gave a very good explanation of the minset in combat. I know your not a vet but it was pretty accurate so good job.

Just an fyi to clear the air after Lixy’s mindless ignorance of the subject matter.

Close Air support isn’t randomly dropped. It is requested and called in by the troops on the ground. You need to know where you are. Where the enemy is and what type of weapon the plane is bringing. If you are off on any of those a problem will happen. The pilot doesn’t loiter looking for someone to support closely.

If the Brits called for help, they needed it badly because if you don’t have to be close to where the bomb is being dropped you will not be. Even if all of the postions are well known you still have the problem of accuracy. Precision munitions may have a circular error of 50ft. If the weapon has a blast radius of 250 ft. 50 ft. one way or the other can get you killed.

A laser guided bomb is most accurate, GPS behind that. So the pilot will drop it wherever you tell him to and high and slow is better then low and fast with this type of weapon. It will have more time to adjust in flight. A high speed pass would be pointless at low altitude.

Americans are the best in the world at Close Air Support. After them Israel and behind them the Brits and French. After them I wouldn’t call it in close. It is dangerous to call in support, from a different military, due to possible confusion, different procedures and lack of joint training standards but like I said the guy on the ground weighed the decision and must have needed it badly.

[hedo]

[quote]Tokoya wrote:
On the topic of dropping things on to civilians:

A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province…

Dixy, does this qualify as a “war crime” because muslims were upset that the balls were bearing the name of Allah?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

[/quote]

Do they still make them out of pigskin? That had to ruffle the feathers even more…

[lixy]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Americans are the best in the world at Close Air Support. After them Israel and behind them the Brits and French. After them I wouldn’t call it in close. It is dangerous to call in support, from a different military, due to possible confusion, different procedures and lack of joint training standards but like I said the guy on the ground weighed the decision and must have needed it badly.[/quote]

Well, the investigation is moving really slow. But sooner or later, we’ll get to know what happened.

Anyway, you seem quite knowledgeable on military matters, so I’ll have to ask you where you got the 250ft range figure? Did you derive it from the 500lbs bomb? More importantly, do you support dropping bombs in that fashion (without a clue of who’s underneath)?

I mean, when you know that Talibans are bunking somewhere, shouldn’t you also make sure there are no 12-year-old shepherds in the region? If so, how is that achieved from the high altitude? My guess is that the pilot just drops the bomb and crosses his/her fingers.

[Tokoya]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Tokoya wrote:
On the topic of dropping things on to civilians:

A demonstration has been held in south- east Afghanistan accusing US troops of insulting Islam after they distributed footballs bearing the name of Allah.

The footballs were dropped from a helicopter in Khost province…

Dixy, does this qualify as a “war crime” because muslims were upset that the balls were bearing the name of Allah?

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Do they still make them out of pigskin? That had to ruffle the feathers even more…

[/quote]
The flag of Israel on the ball probably caused some hurt feelings. I wonder if Dixy’s roomate (the one he says is in Afghanistan) got hit with one of these balls. I’m sure this constitutes a war crime in his view.

[hedo]

[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Americans are the best in the world at Close Air Support. After them Israel and behind them the Brits and French. After them I wouldn’t call it in close. It is dangerous to call in support, from a different military, due to possible confusion, different procedures and lack of joint training standards but like I said the guy on the ground weighed the decision and must have needed it badly.

Well, the investigation is moving really slow. But sooner or later, we’ll get to know what happened.

Anyway, you seem quite knowledgeable on military matters, so I’ll have to ask you where you got the 250ft range figure? Did you derive it from the 500lbs bomb? More importantly, do you support dropping bombs in that fashion (without a clue of who’s underneath)?

I mean, when you know that Talibans are bunking somewhere, shouldn’t you also make sure there are no 12-year-old shepherds in the region? If so, how is that achieved from the high altitude? My guess is that the pilot just drops the bomb and crosses his/her fingers.[/quote]

I got the blast radius figure from memory and previous training in actually calling in a strike. Blast radius is the damage caused by the explosion, not the shockwave and shrapnel. Closer then 250ft., at least in 1989, was considered very risky. The pilot knew exactly what he was aiming for, so did the man who called it in. He didn’t call it in on himself. Your ignorance of the matter is apparent but since it has already been explained to you at least once perhaps you have another agenda in asking such a dumb question?

How would a pilot determine that there were no 12 yr. old shepherds in the region? Is the shepherd carrying a weapon and participating in the fight? If so that makes him a combatant. Your side uses kids to do homicide bombings all the time remember.

The person on the ground would have to determine the risk of using a bomb, in this situation, at least. And no the pilot doesn’t just cross his fingers. That is how an Arab pilot would do it. US Pilots are professionals. He would loiter in the area to see if he is still needed or in this case to mark the position for a rescue and provide support with more ordanance or his guns. After all they were in a firefight.

[lixy]

[quote]hedo wrote:
I got the blast radius figure from memory and previous training in actually calling in a strike. Blast radius is the damage caused by the explosion, not the shockwave and shrapnel. Closer then 250ft., at least in 1989, was considered very risky. The pilot knew exactly what he was aiming for, so did the man who called it in. He didn’t call it in on himself. [/quote]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that.

How would a pilot determine that there were no 12 yr. old shepherds in the region? Is the shepherd carrying a weapon and participating in the fight? If so that makes him a combatant. Your side uses kids to do homicide bombings all the time remember.

Trust me, the Talibans would slice me open the first chance they get. It’s really not “my side”. But I get your point nonetheless. It’s really sad that kids are drawn into this, and even sadder that it’s not gonna stop anytime soon.

The person on the ground would have to determine the risk of using a bomb, in this situation, at least. And no the pilot doesn’t just cross his fingers. That is how an Arab pilot would do it.

Maybe, maybe not. The more reason for Arabs to avoid tangled up in such quagmires.

On an unrelated note, all the jet pilots I had the opportunity to meet were junkies. In total I talked to 8 pilots. 5 Arabs, 2 French and one Russian, all of whom were messing up with their brain chemistry on a regular basis. Might be the reason I am biased when it comes to army pilots.

US Pilots are professionals. He would loiter in the area to see if he is still needed or in this case to mark the position for a rescue and provide support with more ordanance or his guns. After all they were in a firefight.

Yeah, he probably did that. But what did he do to check who was down. I’m not trying quibbling here, I’m really interested in the procedure used in such cases. Since all of you insist that pilots are “super-trained” and that they’re not likely to make such mistakes, it’s gotta be a flaw in the procedure that caused the incident, right?

[anon31651765]

[quote]lixy wrote:

Yeah, he probably did that. But what did he do to check who was down. I’m not trying quibbling here, I’m really interested in the procedure used in such cases. Since all of you insist that pilots are “super-trained” and that they’re not likely to make such mistakes, it’s gotta be a flaw in the procedure that caused the incident, right?[/quote]

Please. All you’re fucking doing is quibbling over nothing.

Do me a favor- FIND ONE WAR WHERE FRIENDLY FIRE NEVER OCCURRED.

I’ll save you the trouble. You can’t. Hedo has explained all the logistics out, and you come back with the same tired bullshit.

You are a disgrace to the politics forum. Even worse than JeffR. And that’s fucking bad.

[rainjack]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Maybe not the one you want to make - or want to hear - but I started the thread. If you don’t like the point being discussed, look elsewhere.[/quote]

Maybe you could pick a fucking point and stay with it.

You have had your ass handed to you each and every time you have tried to duck or dodge in this thread.

Not much different than any other thread you participate in really - but this one is especially bad because of just how much ignorance/stupidity/partisan bullshit you are spewing.

[lixy]

Ok guys, mea culpa.

It was silly of me to entertain the idea that that particular pilot didn’t do his best without as much as a shred of evidence.

It wasn’t very bright to speculate on such a([n] apparently) sensitive issue as whether the US army was doing the best it can to avoid killing innocents.

More importantly, I shouldn’t have amalgamated this case of “friendly fire” with cases of soldiers shooting at unarmed civilians.

For all that, I apologize.

But I learned quite a lot. First, that Americans will come to the defense of their troops not matter what. I personally have a hard time liking people shooting guns because-they-were-told-to-do-so, but it’s always refreshing to hear the other side where 60-years old tales of patriotism are alive as vivid memories in the minds of 20-years-old. Secondly, we have no idea what the Brit who called for air-support had in mind. If he knew that the US Air Force might end up dropping 500lbs bombs, well…it’s sad to say, but he is not blameless. I’ve never seen one of those things blow up in real life, but I can imagine that they do a lot of damage. Heck, they’re designed for that very purpose. And I guess since you have plenty of planes and an abundant supply of explosives, might as well use them…right?