In a televised address to the American public on Wednesday, President Trump issued a warning to Iran, stating that the country would be reduced to a state of utter devastation if it failed to agree to a peace deal that met Washington’s demands to end the ongoing conflict, now in its fifth week. This threat, which has been interpreted as a veiled promise of widespread destruction, would result in the obliteration of a nation’s infrastructure, leaving no modern structures standing, including hospitals, schools, universities, businesses, hotels, skyscrapers, or parks.
Such an action would likely be classified as a war crime under international law, given its potential to cause widespread harm to civilians. However, this type of threat is not a new phenomenon. The phrase ‘reduced to ancient ruins’ is often associated with Curtis LeMay, a US Air Force officer who oversaw the destruction of Japanese cities during World War II. In the early 1950s, US-led forces conducted a campaign of carpet bombing against North Korea, resulting in the destruction of nearly 95 percent of its power generation capacity and over 80 percent of its buildings.
LeMay later advocated for the US to employ similar tactics against Vietnam during the war in Southeast Asia. In 1972, US President Richard Nixon ordered the carpet bombing of North Vietnam, which was marketed to the American public as the ‘Christmas bombing’ campaign. Following the September 11 attacks, the US threatened to reduce Pakistan to ‘ancient ruins’ if it did not join the war against the Taliban, according to then-Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
Skardu.pk is one of the leading authentic news and information platform focusing on adventure tourism, regional and world affairs.
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team