this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
317 points (98.5% liked)
Greentext
7618 readers
871 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, but may I suggest: More bombs
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.
The comment just said that you could genocide most of the population. Not that it would resolve a conflict
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.
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"
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?