This is why you can't go for the throat of a regime anymore, even if you have overwhelming force. Because if you do then, well, you are already going to jail for war crimes anyway.
This is why you can't go for the throat of a regime anymore, even if you have overwhelming force. Because if you do then, well, you are already going to jail for war crimes anyway.
What seems scarier to me is the newer possibility of a huge number of very small remote attacks that utterly devastate the fabric of civilian systems, but none of them individually look like egregious war crimes. With the right PR, they can be defended as "limited" and "surgical" attacks denying "dual-use" infrastructure. Put all the blame for "looking suspicious" onto the locals with advance warning. Solar panels on the roof? Just like a command post. Radio antenna, looks like a communications relay. Fuel tanks? Vehicle pool. You can even give notice of all the strikes, you don't need to bomb them personally, they'll be out of mind without food, water, sewerage, healthcare or heating. For bonus points, then you can blame the defending government for failures of governance when they can't organise, say, waste treatment any more.
realistically, only if you lose the war.
Through what non-nuclear means would they hypothetically destroy this massive concrete structure?