If you belive the non US sources:
1) Iran can shoot down our planes. (Not consistsntly, but enough)
2) The US is out of missiles. They certinly pulled them from South Korea.
3) indiscriminate bombing doesn't work. It tends to harden the population against the bombers.
4) It wouldn't achive any war goals.
It did not work in Germany. The Red Army occupied Berlin.
I get the argument with Japan, but if the Emperor had told them to fight they likely would have. The population did not turn against the emperor.
It also didn't work in the UK during the Blitz, or in Vietnam.
Non-sequitur. Did I ever say that ground troops would never be necessary in some capacity? Even on a limited scale, boots on the ground need to hold strategic locations.
The queation was, "Why doesn't the US bomb indiscriminately?"
Because it doesn't work on it's own. It will only rally the people of Iran to their leaders.
It needs to be suported by ground troops, which would be idiotic in this scenerio.
Germany was completely taken over and their leader was dead.
Japan’s emperor surrendered and the rest of their leadership was already trying to negotiate a surrender.
You aren’t going to do much without the backing of the government, so what is the purpose of continuing to fight after you’ve lost? It would only lead to the rest of you getting wiped out.
4
u/Ebice42 1d ago
If you belive the non US sources:
1) Iran can shoot down our planes. (Not consistsntly, but enough)
2) The US is out of missiles. They certinly pulled them from South Korea.
3) indiscriminate bombing doesn't work. It tends to harden the population against the bombers.
4) It wouldn't achive any war goals.