Carpet bombing is a very effective method for getting countries negotiate or at least effective at inflicting severely impacting their ability to wage war. In Vietnam, we had three major bombing campaings: Operation Rolling Thunder (was unsuccessful because political restrictions on possible targets), and Operations Linebacker I and II (both were very effective and brought the N. Vietnamese the to negotiating table, where a peace plan was drawn up. After the US left, N.Vietnam invaded the south. However, the carpetbombing campaigns were extremely effective. In the long run, it might cause less casualties because of a quicker end due to the shock factor. However, it can easily inflict a great many casualties on the enemy. Also, if you know where you are bombing, then it is very easy to avoid hitting schools, hospitals, etc. You just don't plan a bombing run over those targets. Its not at all similar to Hezbollah. Hezbollah was intentinally trynig to hit civilian targets (not even anything like manufacturing centers or trying to take out infastructure, which could be a legitimate target, but rather houses and such).
Yes and no. Ironically, the fewest casualties occur in conflicts where one side dramatically overwhelms the other. Carpet bombing often accomplishes that goal, when followed by some sort of occupation by ground forces. But on a target by target basis, you aren't discriminating between military and civilian targets. So although your overall casulaties may be lower (if you have an overwhelming force), your civilian/military casualty ratio is higher. You want minimum civilian casualties, look at Israel, and second the US in Iraq. Both have taken great pains, including warning the enemy of future attacks, in order to minimize civilian casualties. Over a long conflict, this lengthens the winning time and therefore increases total casualties. But in the short run, it is good for public relations. And don't think for a minute that Hezbollah doesn't want casualties. Israel's objective is to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah's objective is to slay every Israeli, Jew or Moslem, like a goat.
Of course it has greater civilian casualties, which is why the US has been developing the smart bombs. The bombing of civilians is a great tragedy, none can deny. It is not so much this or the other means of making war that is immoral or inhumane. What is immoral is war itself. Once full-scale war has broken out it can never be humanized or civilized, and if one side attempted to do so it would be most likely to be defeated. That to me is the lesson of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No, it doesn't. The most bombed country in history was North Vietnam, and they were scarcely subdued - they ended up winning the war! I wonder if you've been reading Mitchell and Douhet's theories? In reality, air bombing is very effective against point targets or small-area suppression. But trying to carpet-bomb with conventional explosives simply creates alot of collateral damage. It doesn't give you any additional military effectiveness while putting your air-fleet at much greater risk.
Carpet bombing is undeniably effective. However its indiscriminate. You can kill the enemy or hit a school or kill your own men for that matter. Its not a controlled atmosphere. You just drop your bombs like a carpet so to speak. Its a great demoralizer and it destroys anything in its path I wouldnt be above using it.