Comment on Anon is Trump
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Nukes? The scary thing about Greenland is that the whole place is basically a handful of small towns. The 10 largest towns represent over 95% of the population. Forget nukes. A dozen large conventional bombs would be enough to genocide the Greenland population.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
That assumes that bombing is effective, accurate and deadly, which is not the case.
Bombs have a 20% accuracy rate, where “on target” is about 2 football fields around the target lol.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Bombs have a 20% accuracy rate, where “on target” is about 2 football fields around the target lol.
Since when, WW2? And the type of bomb I was referring are things like this.
It would take ten of those to wipe out the Greenlanders as thoroughly as the historic genocide of the Native Americans.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Per your link: The MOAB was used once, has a 1 mile blast radius, and based on reports killed “only terrorists - 90 of them” “a bunch of people including teachers and students” and “no one”
Hardly definitive. Also, a 1 mile bomb killing fewer than 100 people?
yeather@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
The MOAB was used to destroy a tunnel complex in Afghanistan. It killed around 100 people in a well fortified underground network. Imagine what it could do to a city or large town.
Your population density argument is bad, a third of the island lives in Nuuk.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You need to improve your basic logic skills.
Saapas@piefed.zip 2 days ago
Sure, but may I suggest: More bombs
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
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.
Saapas@piefed.zip 2 days ago
The comment just said that you could genocide most of the population. Not that it would resolve a conflict