I'll try one more time....

before calling it quits.

Brandioch: And the demolition company's objective was to see that the stadium was destroyed.

But they managed to do so WITHOUT loss of life or injury to children.

Scott: I'm sure that, if at all possible, a targeting officer will not pick a target if he had information that children were present.

Brandioch: Read the speeches. They're talking about sending missiles into a CITY.

And stadiums are often in cities. Your point?

Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them. Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy.

Cities are big. Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities. Bomb delivery and missiles are getting more accurate. Just because, someone somewhere in the Pentagon has proposed using 400 cruise missiles on Baghdad's infrastructure and military targets doesn't mean that the US is going to be deliberately targeting children.

You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children. I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties. It will be very difficult though. Especially if "human shields" are present - something you don't want to talk about.

I don't think our military is stupid enough to use cruise missiles if something smaller will do the job. E.g. IIRC, they took out a lot of the power grid the last time using carbon fibers dropped over the power lines...

That's about it from me on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.

And stadiums are often in cities. Your point?

Funny. I was using the example of high explosives being used in a city to demolish a stadium as an example of how responsible someone has to be when high explosives are used in a city.

And all you managed to get out of that was that a stadium was in a city.

Yes, care must be taken in chosing targets and putting the right amount of ordnance on them.

Yes. That is correct.

Incomplete, but correct.

Picking the right size ordnance is easier now than it was a decade or two ago due to improved targeting accuracy.

Again, correct, but incomplete.

Cities are big.

And water is wet and fire is hot and you're just going to continue filling in irrelevent details, aren't you?

Children aren't uniformly distributed in cities.

Yep. You are.

Have I ever said that cities weren't big? Have I ever said that children were uniformly distributed in them? No and No.

I guess it is too much to ask you to stay anywhere close to on topic, isn't it?

You apparently believe that there's no way that the US can reasonably perform such an attack without knowingly killing children.

Seem to believe? Have you missed the ENTIRE POINT of this thread?

I believe that it is possible to carryout such an attack without knowingly killing children, and I do trust the military to try to minimize casualties.

Cute.

They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children
-but-
They will be TRYING to minimize casualties.

Isn't that cute? It's trying to play semantic games. You swapped "casualties" for "killing children". Here's how you SHOULD have written it.

They won't KNOWINGLY be killing children
-but-
They will be TRYING to minimize killing children.

Then you can see the flaw in your logic.

Welcome to IWETHEY!