The enduring promise of airpower since its inception has been the ability
to capitalize on the third dimension. Flying over surface forces offers the
opportunity to penetrate into the heartland of enemy territory and attack
those key targets the enemy holds most dear. Unfortunately, the record of
strategic attack in practice has been mixed at best.1 There have been cases
where strategic attack made significant contributions to victory.2 However,
the mechanism by which the enemy was moved to grant concessions has
always been somewhat fuzzy. Put prescriptively, is it better to target facilities
that affect the capability of the enemy to continue fighting, or is it
more profitable to strike targets that, if lost, will cripple the enemy’s will to
continue?
Bookmarks