However, this is a mistake, it does not take into account a priori information, which says that the probability of regularly bombing yourself after the troops of another country invaded you is extremely small, but the probability of bombing by the invading countries is extremely high, both in terms of statistics and with point of view of assessing the complexity of the hypothesis.
Historically, that’s wrong. Bombing your own assets to prevent them from falling into enemy hands happened often in history. Especially bridges are often destroyed to prevent attackers from advancing and supplying their troops.
If an attacker wants to take over a city, it’s more valuable if the city is standing than when all the houses are destroyed.
Generally, you wouldn’t expect a country to want to use cluster ammunitions inside its own borders because as CNN describes:
Cluster munitions are imprecise by design, and scatter “bomblets” across large areas that can fail to explode on impact and can pose a long-term risk to anyone who encounters them, similar to landmines.
Historically, that’s wrong. Bombing your own assets to prevent them from falling into enemy hands happened often in history. Especially bridges are often destroyed to prevent attackers from advancing and supplying their troops.
If an attacker wants to take over a city, it’s more valuable if the city is standing than when all the houses are destroyed.
Generally, you wouldn’t expect a country to want to use cluster ammunitions inside its own borders because as CNN describes: