Reply #1: Eh. [View All]

Humanitarian needs say you need to stop the fighting near populated areas.

In order to do this you need an offensive to help push the front lines back.

To keep the front lines there you need to destroy the opponent's local military capacity to resist the offensive or even stage a counterstrike. This involves a few different approaches.

Branch A:
To do that, you need to make sure that the opponent's military can't resupply.

To do that, you need to make sure the opponent's territory cannot move supplies or produce supplies.

To do that you must make sure nothing can move, by destroying vehicles and depriving the opponent of fuel. You must make sure there is no industry to produce materiel, and you must make sure there are no young men alive who could be mustered as troops.

Branch B:
To sap morale, you must not only hurt the troops but also the troops' families.

You must keep the leaders from communicating, but also keep families from supporting the troops.

Anything to weaken morale, in the public or among the troops, will help prevent a counterstrike.

Branch C:
The only way to truly prevent a counterstrike, in the absence of conquering the country to preserve a city, is to provoke a further revolution.

We've seen that economic collapse and deprivation is the way to trigger uprisings, but only if the government is deemed responsible.

Therefore anything that destroys the public morale, including extreme economic deprivation, is good.


Therefore, in order to be truly humanitarian, we must cause extreme economic deprivation dislocation; we must destroy any and all infrastructure. Ideally, if we could cause a truly horrendous humanitarian catastrophe, it would achieve the illustrious and just goal of preventing any humanitarian catastrophe at all.