Show of HandsShow of Hands

TheMobius August 15th, 2016 6:12pm

Is strategic bombing an acceptable strategy in total war?

3 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

GingerFascist Ireland
08/15/16 11:35 am

Of course. Unfortunately many civilians have to die but it is the casualties of war.

TheMobius Siberian Gulag
08/15/16 11:28 am

WWII, Vietnam, and and the first Gulf War shows that it does. Any country that has been at the receiving end of an effective strategic bombing campaign has lost the respective war.

Mackinaw Wolverine State, est.1837
08/15/16 11:35 am

Wrong on WWII and Vietnam. Bombing on German factories had little impact and the damage was repaired within days. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all the bombs in WWII, and it had little effect on their fighting capacity. We lost that war, remember?

As for the Gulf War I don't know how extensive the strategic bombing campaign was. Tactical strikes against armor was certainly effective though.

TheMobius Siberian Gulag
08/15/16 11:44 am

You are 100% wrong. Allied bombing hampered all German industries, including oil production, aircraft, tanks, raw materials, transportation, and basic refined materials. Bombing crippled entire factories and cities and forced german workers to keep rebuilding at home instead of building frontline defenses, which lead to victories in Normandy and the Eastern front. Japan's ability to produce weapons and supplies was destroyed and every major industrial center was destroyed. In Vietnam, every strategic bombing campaign forced North Vietnam to negotiate until the finally signed a peace treaty. In the Gulf War, strategic bombing destroyed Iraq's air fields, radar systems, command centers, and industrial centers, making a 3 day ground campaign possible.

TheMobius Siberian Gulag
08/15/16 11:45 am

Also, the Allied bombing campaign destroyed the Luftwaffe, allowing for air superiority and quicker victories in all European fronts