is it possible to win a war with air power alone?

Answer 1

Yes certainly. It was done in Kosovo and didn't involve just pounding the entire country flat. It all depends on what the specific objectives of victory are.

EDIT: Kosovo was anything BUT an anomoly... and there was NEVER a threat of ground invasion. Hell, the news even broadcast that the UN had strictly determined NO ground invasion would occur. The lessons learned in Kosovo were obviously effective because we turned around and employed the same techniques in Afghanistan with WILD success.

Finally, just because Douhet was a sadist doesn't invalidate any of the thousands of other air power advocates who were sane. That's like saying General Johnston of the Civil war was a fool, so the Army has been obsolete since the mid-1800s. That type of argument doesn't make sense.

Answer 2

You could destroy another country with air power alone but war is "just an extension of politics" and to win a war you must also control and control has and will always mean boots on the ground, We could destroy Iran as a country by bombing it until no manufacturing or cities were left but without cotrol of the people we would be fighting the survivors or their children looking for revenge sooner or later so we wouldn't win the war just delay the next phase.

Answer 3

No, if you dont own the ground you didnt win the war, air power has to have targets to be effective Iraq and Afganistan are battle fields where the majority of fighting involves close combat, ambush and IAD,s an F22 cant see a 120 mm cannon shell buried in the road set to remote detonate, but an infantryman/combat engineer can. A soldier on the ground says to the enemy I and my country are here and you will do what our government requires the only limit to this is the will of the people to win a war.

Answer 4

No.

Kosovo was an anomaly; the bombing campaign was presented to the dictator Milosevic as the prelude to NATO ground forces invading the whole of former Yugoslavia if he didn't back down. The only people who believe that air power alone wins wars are bluesuiters who are the spiritual decendants of the folks who claimed that the Combined Bomber Offensive alone was responsible for winning WWII.

As T. R. Fehrenbach (himself a combat vet) wrote in chapter 11, Proud Legions, of This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness--

"In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
"In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies the buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
"Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
"Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but it you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud."

Answer 5

The answer is a resounding NO. In every major bombing campaign where Air power alone was used, it has failed. In Vietnam, we were dropping millions of tons of bombs, and although it did wreck havoc on the enemy, it wasn't nearly enough to deter the flow of NVA troops and supplies into South Vietnam.

The Douhet model of air power alone is foolish. Even in WWII, all air power did was cause massive civilian casualties. One of the reasons for aerial bombardment is to crush the enemy's will to resist. Well, if someone bombed the crap out of your country and killed your friends and families, I would expect that most people would react by taking up arms and resisting even more.

It was air power + ground offensives that had the greatest success in WWII.


Even with today's sophisticated technology, it is still very difficult to find enemy ground forces and to distinguish between them and civilians.

There is some really good documentary about aerial bombing campaigns in WWII and most historians have concluded that the biggest result of the campaigns was heavy civilian casualties.

Answer 6

In World War I, we had ground superiority.

In World War II, we had nukes.

I think the key to winning the next World War is dismembering the communications systems. No information, no chance. Air, sea and ground strength are all factors but not the winning edge.

Answer 7

Depends on the objectives. Thermonuclear war does not need occupation as an end result. A conventional war is another matter.

Answer 8

History suggests otherwise, although many countries have pursued this illusion.

You can HURT the enemy but you cannot conquer him with air power.

Some say Japan was conquest by air, but this was only after years of brutal land combat which isolated Japan and brought it to the brink of starvation.

Answer 9

Absolutely not. Just look back at history which is usually a good predictor. Not accurate enough and always, always need ground troops. Remember that war is not just physical - it's psychological and that can't be won from a fighter jet.

Answer 10

-To kill thier Economy = YES

-To Conquer thier land =NO

-To kill thier Air force= YES

-To Kill thier Navy= YES

-To change history= YES

-To save your economy alot of heartbreaking and money =YES

-To threaten and enemy to not attack your country with ground/naval/ and air forces. = NO

-To kill thier ground troops= NO (this is utterly impossible unless you either have alot of bombs, they have a small army.)

-But if your connected to that country by land =No (they will be bound to attack your country with ground forces, and no amount of air will stop a massive invasion of the size of 100,000+ troops or if you plan to build air bases in the country and continue to bomb, thier to is impossible sine you will need strong ground forces to protect your airbases).

-But ultimately it's saying you can win a war with aircraft carriers alone.