Many countries like to bomb other countries in periods of war and strife, of which, the great advantage for those dropping such bombs is that since they are dropped at a distance high up in the air that the aggressors of this sort of warfare are often in the clear of not having to suffer a debilitating retaliatory response from the defenders of countries or organizations or peoples being targeted and bombed. In addition, there are cases, especially when the United States is involved, in which, America's bombers, and the sophistication of its logistics are far superior to those that would try to mitigate or respond to such, so that America can pretty much bomb its targets without much fear of any reasonable retaliation to its air force, not to mention the fact that America has the most sophisticated drone strike force in the world, which means that for countries with unlimited military budgets and unlimited bombing munitions, that said countries can literally bomb their intended targets to their heart's content.
So too, bombing accuracy, at least in theory and often in practicality, has gotten far more accurate since the days of World War II, with today's sophisticated targeting mechanisms that allow specific targeting of areas that are incredibly accurate and reliable. This means that those that love to bomb can make the argument, that, not to worry, these bombs only hit their intended targets with minimal collateral damage, even though in actuality, whether because of the sheer amount of bombing conducted, human error, or mission overreach, the collateral damage created by bombing is far more destructive, than agents of the state would ever want to admit to.
In point of fact, the sick thing about bombing targets, above all, is the plausible deniability of it all, that is to say, the easy excuse that is made time and time again, that civilians that were essentially murdered under state sanction, were not killed deliberately but just happened to be in the vicinity of the bombing, or the bombing coordinates were off, or the "bad guys" were trying to hide around civilians, or the civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so on, ad nauseaum. The big question that is never answered is why any country feels that is has the right and the license to bomb another, especially when doing so will undoubtedly kill civilians, will undoubtedly take out infrastructure, and in general, wreak havoc throughout communities.
Then there is the god complex, that so many countries that enact bombing campaigns, seem to suffer from, which is that by the very act of bombing and bombing and bombing, that all those that are suffering the deprivations from such bombing, will submit to its aggressor. Really? If this theory was really legitimate, than all those that did not have the wherewithal to fight back, would simply submit to their oppressor and thereby ask for the terms of their surrender, but in almost all cases, they do not. Instead, unlimited and non-constructive bombing campaigns rather than defeating the enemy, often embolden those that have lost or are losing everything, to stand together, and to become, in today's world, insurgents, which in the greater meaning of that word, means to stand with their country, to stand with their people, to stand with their family, and to fight back by any means available, and to never give in, never, never, never, never in nothing great or small, and to never yield to your implacable enemy.