this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
322 points (98.5% liked)
Greentext
7621 readers
420 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
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.
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
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.
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.