• Altofaltception@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Let’s say they didn’t have the vehicles. What would they arm them with?

    That’s like saying we’ll send the Israelis bombers but if they arm them with bombs, that’s on them.

    You’re being pedantic but it’s a stupid argument to make.

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      That’s like saying we’ll send the Israelis bombers but if they arm them with bombs, that’s on them.

      No, that’d be like arming LAVs with cannons and machine guns, but not supplying ammo. I won’t argue that LAVs are anything but machines of war but they alone aren’t weapons, and the distinction is important.

      • Altofaltception@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        Bombers don’t necessarily have to come with bombs. They could be used to dump water for example on a forest fire. The bombs are extra.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          30 days ago

          Water bombers are completely different than strategic bombers. The models are not interchangeable.

          And the bombs are extra, but so are the armaments those bombs are launched from.