Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 97
- 3
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ah, the "purist" view. So it's not a "real" strategic air win unless it comes 100% from the air, we're not allowed to make use of commando raids or friendly local factions. In fact, it was over before it began, since the mass protests in Iran disqualified the Air Force from being able to win "fairly." I suspect most military commanders don't see it that way though.
Unlike decadent Iran, which fights with large expensive ballistic missiles that are in short supply, the US fights with cheap mass produced drones like the LUCAS. There's really no need for the bombing to ever stop, unless Iran has one of those force fields from Dune that can only be penetrated by a slow-moving knife attack.
Yes. If you have to utilize ground troops to achieve your objective, it was not accomplished solely through air power. You cannot equivocate between a special operation with air support and and a pure air campaign.
Sure, just so long as you realize that you're talking about some strange hypothetical situation of "pure air power" that's never actually been tried. In real wars, countries use every asset they reasonably can, which includes spies, commando raids, and allying with local dissidents. The operation in Venezuela is about as close to "pure" air power as you're likely to ever see, they only sent in special forces for one brief helicopter raid for political reasons when it obviously would have been much easier to just strike Maduro from the air.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link