Wolf424 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ff4662469f95 The big strategic campaigns, including the Combined Bomber Offensive in World War II and Rolling Thunder and Linebacker II in Vietnam, witnessed the expenditure of tremendous sums of men, money and aircraft to limited and ambiguous strategic effect. Ambiguous strategic effect? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the bombing of Honshu (Japan's main island) and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a very large strategic effect...as in ending WWII. A short google search shows that this guy has written numerous papers about the Navy. (http://www.uky.edu/~rmfarl2/Farleycv.htm) Including "The Future of US Naval Power" (is that bias I smell?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ratner Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 The real question is, if the Navy's primary mission these days is projection of Air Power all over the globe, why do we waste our time with a separate service (Navy) when we could just keep the support assets together. Or to put it in his words: Separating naval military assets from the air assets they organically support makes no more sense than the creation of separate arms for tanks and submarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 the Navy's primary mission these days is projection of Air Power landing on bo-ats Fixed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 https://medium.com/w...ng/ff4662469f95 Ambiguous strategic effect? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the bombing of Honshu (Japan's main island) and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a very large strategic effect...as in ending WWII. <snip> Yep, and... Linebacker I and II had a direct correlation with positive (from our standpoint) NV diplomatic activity in Paris with Kissinger. FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 If the Air Force exists as just artillery for the Army, then I must have missed the change when they incorporated shooting mortar shells at power plants and government buildings as part of their FA doctrine. Because if you aren't nuking shit or doing CAS, then you're probably not doing much of anything else... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalMother Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ff4662469f95 Ambiguous strategic effect? I'm going to go out on a limb and say the bombing of Honshu (Japan's main island) and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a very large strategic effect...as in ending WWII. Debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted August 13, 2013 Share Posted August 13, 2013 Why America Needs The Air Force: Rebuttal To Prof. Farley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now