• Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        I guess it really depends on what you bomb. Military bases, government buildings etc – there is a chance. Civilian infrastructure, hospitals etc – no.

        It should be noted though that for example during WWII, the allied bombing of German cities really lowered morale, despite what propaganda tried to portray; but the situation is obviously different because Germany was actively at war with boots on the ground and everyone including its citizens knew they were an open aggressor.

        Edit: of course it wasn’t open revolt, but it sped up regime change.

        Also please don’t read this as pro bombing. I think this is worst solution to the issue that was caused by Western countries that never stepped up