>It is, of course, quite possible that "drop the building" is insufficiently honest for you. I'm sure the author could have written "explosively annihilated the five-story building under construction, most likely killing any person inside or atop it". Though I confess I'm not sure what this phrasing would add that "drop the building" does not. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
That's just ridiculous. Silly and snarky. But you know that. The GP wanted honest, not more verbose; plain language that describes the reality, not pseudo-objective jargon that conceals it. What makes it horrific is that you're joking about killing lots of people.
"Drop the building" is also a euphemism, like "light up" to mean to kill. Making murder sound bland and neutral. But I suppose it must be, to the "subject matter experts".
"Drop the building" is not a euphemism here. It does nothing at all to disguise the effect of the action or pretend it's anything less than immensely destructive to both property and life. It describes an action taken deliberately, with intent, to destroy and kill.
My point being that the article is neither euphemistic nor dishonest. It is quite straightforward and clear about actions, goals, means, and expected outcomes. I understand if some people might disagree and consider the wording used to be insufficiently evocative for their own personalized interpretations of more broadly recognized vernacular.
To be clear, I am in no way, shape, or form joking about killing people. I am pointing out that the article treats the matter with gravitas.
I would argue that being able to destroy a single building with an air strike is a HUGE reduction in 'killing lots of people' compared to wars past, where large bombers dropped thousands of bombs over entire areas of a city hoping to weaken/destroy infrastructure the enemy was using.
Pedantic nitpick: “drop the building” isn’t a euphemism. It literally reflects the intended action that will lead to the desired result (if the insurgent dies great, if not the threat is eliminated anyway).
To say "drop the building" when it means "destroy the building (and everyone inside)" has that same horrifying whitewashing feel that "light up" has for me. The bland language allows people to do things they otherwise (hopefully) couldn't/wouldn't.
"Drop" is a term of art from the demolition industry. The U.S. Army does a lot of non-combat demolition work, the Corps of Engineers in particular, and the language carries over quite naturally.
In this case, "destroy the building" is less accurate than "drop". Their goal was complete demolition, to prevent the building from being occupied by more fighters. The intended audience of this article will understand the language clearly.
The article describes the problem as a building that extends above the surrounding 3-story neighborhood. (5 if I remember right) That is the problem to be solved, so carving off the top couple stories would do the job.
There are less-practical solutions. One could pull out the 2nd and 4th stories, like playing a game of Jenga. One could shove the whole building down by two stories, fully intact, giving it two basements.
So "drop" seems especially fitting here. The highest point needs to drop by two stories.
That's just ridiculous. Silly and snarky. But you know that. The GP wanted honest, not more verbose; plain language that describes the reality, not pseudo-objective jargon that conceals it. What makes it horrific is that you're joking about killing lots of people.
"Drop the building" is also a euphemism, like "light up" to mean to kill. Making murder sound bland and neutral. But I suppose it must be, to the "subject matter experts".