The full article text is available by following the link. Comment here, comment on Newsvine. It's all up to you.Throughout the history of warfare, changes in technology and strategic thought have brought about a constant ebb and flow in military doctrine. The emergence of new weapons and the fundamental alteration of the field of combat have played decisive rolls in the history of warfare, toppling great powers and allowing smaller and less well financed forces to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Examples of these shifts may be found throughout history. The English Longbow exemplifies a technological change that impacted the Hundred Years War, whereas the emergence of the Greek City State brought about the prominence of phalanx infantry combat, which dominated the Balkan Peninsula throughout most of the Bronze and early Iron Ages.
A similar shift is underway today.
Fundamental alterations in the nature of combat, combined with the increased economic stratification of military powers have created a strategic environment in which the previously indispensable edge of air-superiority has been relegated to a transient advantage. With more than fifty years of military dogma and doctrine built upon leveraging smaller and more specialized infantry and armor forces upon the fulcrum of air power, the United States and other Western military machines must adapt or perish.
The End of Airpower
Moderator: EG Members
- Killfile
- Flexing spam muscles
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 8:54 pm
- Location: St. Petersburg - 1917
- Contact:
The End of Airpower
The End of Airpower
Nice article, yet I'm having a little trouble comprehending what is being pointed out. Are you stating that air power has always or recently become a nice edge to combat and not a necessity, or that it is of declining in use altogether?
edit: nevermind, did some re-reading+read comments.
much true America has been unmatched and air superiority isn't anywhere near a scale of WWII as we have basically been unopposed in the air for a good 3 to 4 decades (correct me if I'm wrong), but I am in agreement that (especially in the middle east right now) land occupation is far more desired than the ability to dominate the skies.
edit: nevermind, did some re-reading+read comments.
much true America has been unmatched and air superiority isn't anywhere near a scale of WWII as we have basically been unopposed in the air for a good 3 to 4 decades (correct me if I'm wrong), but I am in agreement that (especially in the middle east right now) land occupation is far more desired than the ability to dominate the skies.