Air war question

[hq21]

There are plenty of points to debate about the Allied bombing of Germany with regards to effectiveness, strategy, targets, et. al. But anyone not still thinking a fat dude in a red suit is gonna drop by one night in late December will understand the original thesis laid out in this thread is nothing more than a "Wal-Mart is why I'm poor" theory. I'm sure you can go to the DailyKos or any other some such and find it all with a slightly different package for each. Kinda like a 1982 Olds Toronado/Buick Riviera/Cadillac Eldorado.
But it was this that begs more of a response:

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.

I am astonished at how both history buffs and "real" historians seem to think history is just some folk tale.
Or (1) has intel never been important before our lifetimes?
Perhaps (2) propaganda is something new?
(3) War has never been an expensive affair?
And (4) has also always been true but it's primary goal isn't for PR purposes so much as it is to actually WIN.

And the statement about the end of global conflicts has been uttered before. Of course, if you believe that history not only begins when you're born, but ends when you die, I'm sure you can believe in the end of global conflicts too. As his been the case so many times before some future (or quite likely current) generation will bear conflagration that which their predecessors said was "history".

[jonnymacbrown]

There are plenty of points to debate about the Allied bombing of Germany with regards to effectiveness, strategy, targets, et. al. But anyone not still thinking a fat dude in a red suit is gonna drop by one night in late December will understand the original thesis laid out in this thread is nothing more than a "Wal-Mart is why I'm poor" theory. I'm sure you can go to the DailyKos or any other some such and find it all with a slightly different package for each. Kinda like a 1982 Olds Toronado/Buick Riviera/Cadillac Eldorado.
But it was this that begs more of a response:

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.

I am astonished at how both history buffs and "real" historians seem to think history is just some folk tale.
Or (1) has intel never been important before our lifetimes?
Perhaps (2) propaganda is something new?
(3) War has never been an expensive affair?
And (4) has also always been true but it's primary goal isn't for PR purposes so much as it is to actually WIN.

And the statement about the end of global conflicts has been uttered before. Of course, if you believe that history not only begins when you're born, but ends when you die, I'm sure you can believe in the end of global conflicts too. As his been the case so many times before some future (or quite likely current) generation will bear conflagration that which their predecessors said was "history".

I drive a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado and believe in Santa. But I still don't get the drift.:conf:

[Grumbler]

The language you stressed I believe to be true. The potential for action against Iran is not a global confrontation as much as the US wants it to be one. Without straying into current events, the fact is that "mass on mass" military engagements are a thing of the past.

The factors that are key to winning military conflicts today are, IMO, (1) information and intel (and the technology that goes with these), (2) public relations, (3) a strong Gross Domestic Product, and (4) well defined goals to keep the PR campaign focused.

Your points all add up to the indirect approach to winning wars. Avoid strength on strength, because it is wastefull. Attack the enemies weakness, no matter what it is.
The real effect of the allied bombing campaign in the ETO was to break the blitzkrieg by tricking the enemy into removing it's key component, Close Air Support. This was not intentional. Air Forces of that period were still wedded to Douhet's (sp?) theories on Strategic Bombing. Air Superiority is a post WW2 concept. The Technology of that period was not able to support the Douhert concept of breaking the enemies will thru bombing.
Ultimatly ALL warfare is about breaking the enemies will to resist.
That is all the current emphisis on Indirect warfare is. The Will to resist is the 'center of gravity' in modern warfare.
As far as Iran goes, they are ideal for testing to see if Douhert's theory is valid. Another test might be a better way to see it, since Kosovo was the first test to see if semi-modern weapons would do what the 4-engine bomber and iron bombs couldn't. Iran is as modern a third world country as it gets. Their infastructure is as advanced as some European Countries. Plenty of targets there. Let Iran see how they like doing without a power grid, bridges, rail trandport, water treatment stations, etc. Iran can be bombed back to the stone age, which Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't since they were already there. Stealth bombers with PGM's could become the 21st century version of the English Man-o-War that spread 'civilization' (or at least the English version of it) around the world in the 17th and 18th centuries.
One note. While mass on mass in a thing of the past, that does not preclude it from also being the future. American Armies are unbeatable in the field, which is why our enemies are using the indirect approach to attack our will to win. If the US loses it's technical edge, then Mass on Mass will make a comeback. The Indirect approach is as unproven as Douhert's theory. It has worked once against America (Vietnam). Once is NOT a trend, nor a valid statistical sample.
I also disagree with the idea that coalition warfare is neccessary, or desirable in the case of Iran. That, however is a different topic for a different day.

[Grumbler]

"Mussolini invented fascism as an economic system where government exists to serve corporate interests."

Nonsense. Mussolini was removed from leadership of the Socialist party so he started a new socialist party and called it Fascism. It was a label change, nothing more, nothing less. Better then calling it the 'New Improved Socialist Party' I suppose. You average citizen is way to caught up in labels. That is how the Islofascists onfuse the simple minded, they just switch labels on their terrorist groups. "Bowling for Virgins Martyrs Brigade" today, "Teenage Mutant Exploding Jihadists" tommorrow. All camo to hide the fact thatthey are one and the same.

A Fascist is a Socialist with a checking account.
A Neo-Con is a Conservative with an overdrawn checking account.
A Communist is without a checking account, since they have no money.
A Liberal is someone with a check book but no account.

I forget the rest, and I'm not sure I remember these correctly.

[jonnymacbrown]

[quote=Grumbler]
"Mussolini invented fascism as an economic system where government exists to serve corporate interests."

Nonsense. Mussolini was removed from leadership of the Socialist party so he started a new socialist party and called it Fascism. It was a label change, nothing more, nothing less.

Do you really believe that Fascism has no ideology?[b] von ege

[hq21]

Communism is basically state ownership of the means of production.
Fascism is basically state control of the means of production.
Both are just different flavors of totalitarianism. The first holds a gun to "corporate interests" heads to take make them hand over thier company to the state, the latter uses the gun to make the "corporate interests" serve the state.
All points of "ideology", e.g.: "Jews are evil", "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", "What's your carbon footprint?"et.al. are simply a means of getting large groups of idiots to march "corporate interests", and ultimately, themselves in front of that gun. :kill:

[Grumbler]

[quote=Grumbler]
"Mussolini invented fascism as an economic system where government exists to serve corporate interests."

Nonsense. Mussolini was removed from leadership of the Socialist party so he started a new socialist party and called it Fascism. It was a label change, nothing more, nothing less.

Do you really believe that Fascism has no ideology?[b] von ege

No, that wasn't what I said. Fascism is a form of Socialism. The name was changed to protect the innocent, as Sgt Friday would say.
Socialism, as originally concieved, is a state controlled by one party. The party is the state and the state is the party. So there are no Corporate interests other then those the state and party desire.
That definition has been changed by self proclaimed Socialists over the years, but they are wrong to do so. Most of the time the revisions are done by Socialists trying to seperate themselves from the excess of socialism in the past.
Socialism in one form or another murdered hundreds of millions of humans in the 20th century. This was done in the process of proving that socialism is a failure as a social and governing system. Since the theory of socialism is attractive to certain types of human, each generation tries to distance itself from the previous generation of socialists by changing the terms in hopes of changing the perception. It doesn't work.
Hitler was a Socialist. Stalin was a Socialist. Modern Socialists refuse to accept those facts because they don't want to be associated with genocide and homocide on a mass basis. Saddam was a Socialist as well as Pol Pot and Mao. Another 40 or 50 million dead.
How did we get from Bombing Europe to Ahmadamnutjob being a Socialist as well as an admirer of Adolph?
If you have trouble imagining Hitler with a nuclear weapon, relax, there is no need to. Just think Iran in the year of our Lord 2007. The name is different and they don't look alike, since they are different people, but the personalties are the same. The goals are the same. If the great experiment in Iraq doesn't work, then the results will be the same only worse. Instead of a few hundred million, Billions will die. That is NOT a good thing.

[jonnymacbrown]

I'm glad you fellows have it all figured out. After we've bombed another country back into the stone age I hope what goes around doesn't come around. von ege.

[hq21]

I'm glad you fellows have it all figured out. After we've bombed another country back into the stone age I hope what goes around doesn't come around. von ege.

You know, that is a great point. I never thought of it that way. Call Congress and the White House and tell them to redeploy to defend against the Japanese bombers ready to "bring it back around"! :boom2:

[Grumbler]

I'm glad you fellows have it all figured out. After we've bombed another country back into the stone age I hope what goes around doesn't come around. von ege.

What is wrong with bombing Iran back to the stone age? Iran is good with it, why aren't you? President Ahamdamnutjob declared war on the USA last April. Or was it May? That is what 'submit to allah now' means when a Islamic Caliph sends it to a non muslim leader. It is how muslims declare war. The Koran requires that a muslim give "the people of the book" (ie: Christian and Jews) a chance to convert before going to war against them. It is the same message that was sent to Egypt, the Byzatine Emporor, the Spainish, the Bulgars, etc. before Islam overwhelmed them ( well, the Bulgars have held out for about 6 centuries or so, and Spain was reconquored a several decades later).
So if you don't want to take them seriously, then that is your problem. Don't expect others to just shrug it off. The point is that Iran WANTS a War against the great Satan. They feel they will win. By their standards they can't lose. Either the West surrenders and adopts Islam, or they die and go to paradise. So war is a win win for Iran.
Bombing them back to the stone age won't change that. What it will do is degrade their capacity to do the west harm. That is a good thing. A very good thing.
We need to do a major bombing campaign every generation until they get the idea that war against America is not the good idea they think it is.