"Civilians" benefit more than soldiers from the effects of war. It stands
to reason, that beating the hell out of soldiers doesn't do much to resolve
whatever problems caused the war in the first place. It's like a boxing
match, where you're only allowed to hit your opponent's fists. If you want
to win, you go for the head. That's why I find the idea of rules of
engagement cynical in the extreme. It just prolongs the misery, resulting
in more damage in the end.

Earle

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
news:GSblh.22673$k74.1979@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> Dave Milne
>
> "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
> > Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > > and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> for
> > > World War 2 finally this month.
> > > Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about
a
> > buck
> > > a dead soldier.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> > > > I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
> > assets
> > > > worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> call
> > > up
> > > > an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other
arenas,
> > > > someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a
senior
> > > > manager !
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > "Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > > > > I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> damned
> > > well
> > > > > earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that
way.
> > > When
> > > > > the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
> > some
> > > > > catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> consider
> > > the
> > > > > value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in
other
> > > > > countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> and
> > > > > Aussie contemporaries at one time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

Okay, so it has -----all to do with jeeps. Still...

I think that you may be asking too broad a question. Without having
thought too deeply about it and considered all the possibilities, it seems
to me that the difference you are looking at is the difference between
formal war between governments -- Clausewitz's war as an extension of
politics -- and informal guerilla war as a extension of philosophy.

In a formal war you have a physical goal: Defeat the enemy in battle,
disarm him, displace the government, occupy and control the territory.
At the government level the reason for the war is generally wealth
of some sort (territory, resources, prestige, &c.)

In a guerilla war there is no such physical goal: There are no pitched
battles to win, no large weapons to confiscate, there is no recognizable
governing body to displace, you often already occupy the territory but
lack the means to effectively control it. It is a deadly game of
Whack-A-Mole. At the top level the reason for the war is that they hate
you.

The strategic bombing program in Germany was certainly a disruption and
forced the government to divert scant resources away from the battlefield.
The "dehousing" program (as the British so quaintly termed it) no doubt
was demoralizing, but the industrial bombing program never achieved its
strategic goal. At the end of the war, Germany's industrial warfare
output was higher than at the start -- what it lacked was the trained
manpower to operate its weapons (once it was denied oil fields it lost the
fuel to train pilots.)

Strategic bombing of Japan didn't begin until late in 1944, when Japan was
already on the ropes, having lost much of the Pacific island territory it
had gained. Japan had planned on a "short war" to satisfy its territorial
ambitions and never fully mobilized its economy on a war footing. Having
incorrectly assumed that the US wouldn't engage them, they were
unprepared for what became, for them, a war of attrition. Because of the
structure of their military they were unable to replace pilots, because
they were denied raw materials they were unable to effectively replace
planes and carriers.

And then there was Vietnam. Bombing programs there had tactical effects,
but never really a strategic effect and didn't result in a favorable (to
western eyes) outcome, in spite of bombing the hell out of them. An USAF
navigator that I knew used to point out that his B-52 payload was larger
than the fully-laden takeoff-weight of the B-17 that he used to navigate.

So why bomb civilians in a formal war? To demoralize them, get them to
stop supporting their government. But to be effective you have to wait
until the war is a couple of years old and beginning to stink, otherwise
you'll just **** them off -- like the Germans did with the English. In a
guerilla war, if you are the conventional force, you'll just **** the
population off and get them to support the guerrillas. If you are the
guerilla force, you bomb civilians and blame the other guy to get the same
effect. If you are both guerilla forces you bomb civilians to terrorize
the population and make them pliant.




On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Dave Milne wrote:

> I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> Dave Milne
>
> "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
>> Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>> news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>> and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> for
>>> World War 2 finally this month.
>>> Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about a
>> buck
>>> a dead soldier.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>>> news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>>>> I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
>> assets
>>>> worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> call
>>> up
>>>> an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other arenas,
>>>> someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a senior
>>>> manager !
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> "Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> damned
>>> well
>>>>> earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that way.
>>> When
>>>>> the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
>> some
>>>>> catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> consider
>>> the
>>>>> value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in other
>>>>> countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> and
>>>>> Aussie contemporaries at one time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.

 

Okay, so it has -----all to do with jeeps. Still...

I think that you may be asking too broad a question. Without having
thought too deeply about it and considered all the possibilities, it seems
to me that the difference you are looking at is the difference between
formal war between governments -- Clausewitz's war as an extension of
politics -- and informal guerilla war as a extension of philosophy.

In a formal war you have a physical goal: Defeat the enemy in battle,
disarm him, displace the government, occupy and control the territory.
At the government level the reason for the war is generally wealth
of some sort (territory, resources, prestige, &c.)

In a guerilla war there is no such physical goal: There are no pitched
battles to win, no large weapons to confiscate, there is no recognizable
governing body to displace, you often already occupy the territory but
lack the means to effectively control it. It is a deadly game of
Whack-A-Mole. At the top level the reason for the war is that they hate
you.

The strategic bombing program in Germany was certainly a disruption and
forced the government to divert scant resources away from the battlefield.
The "dehousing" program (as the British so quaintly termed it) no doubt
was demoralizing, but the industrial bombing program never achieved its
strategic goal. At the end of the war, Germany's industrial warfare
output was higher than at the start -- what it lacked was the trained
manpower to operate its weapons (once it was denied oil fields it lost the
fuel to train pilots.)

Strategic bombing of Japan didn't begin until late in 1944, when Japan was
already on the ropes, having lost much of the Pacific island territory it
had gained. Japan had planned on a "short war" to satisfy its territorial
ambitions and never fully mobilized its economy on a war footing. Having
incorrectly assumed that the US wouldn't engage them, they were
unprepared for what became, for them, a war of attrition. Because of the
structure of their military they were unable to replace pilots, because
they were denied raw materials they were unable to effectively replace
planes and carriers.

And then there was Vietnam. Bombing programs there had tactical effects,
but never really a strategic effect and didn't result in a favorable (to
western eyes) outcome, in spite of bombing the hell out of them. An USAF
navigator that I knew used to point out that his B-52 payload was larger
than the fully-laden takeoff-weight of the B-17 that he used to navigate.

So why bomb civilians in a formal war? To demoralize them, get them to
stop supporting their government. But to be effective you have to wait
until the war is a couple of years old and beginning to stink, otherwise
you'll just **** them off -- like the Germans did with the English. In a
guerilla war, if you are the conventional force, you'll just **** the
population off and get them to support the guerrillas. If you are the
guerilla force, you bomb civilians and blame the other guy to get the same
effect. If you are both guerilla forces you bomb civilians to terrorize
the population and make them pliant.




On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Dave Milne wrote:

> I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> Dave Milne
>
> "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
>> Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>> news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>> and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> for
>>> World War 2 finally this month.
>>> Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about a
>> buck
>>> a dead soldier.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>>> news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>>>> I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
>> assets
>>>> worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> call
>>> up
>>>> an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other arenas,
>>>> someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a senior
>>>> manager !
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> "Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> damned
>>> well
>>>>> earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that way.
>>> When
>>>>> the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
>> some
>>>>> catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> consider
>>> the
>>>>> value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in other
>>>>> countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> and
>>>>> Aussie contemporaries at one time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.

 

Okay, so it has -----all to do with jeeps. Still...

I think that you may be asking too broad a question. Without having
thought too deeply about it and considered all the possibilities, it seems
to me that the difference you are looking at is the difference between
formal war between governments -- Clausewitz's war as an extension of
politics -- and informal guerilla war as a extension of philosophy.

In a formal war you have a physical goal: Defeat the enemy in battle,
disarm him, displace the government, occupy and control the territory.
At the government level the reason for the war is generally wealth
of some sort (territory, resources, prestige, &c.)

In a guerilla war there is no such physical goal: There are no pitched
battles to win, no large weapons to confiscate, there is no recognizable
governing body to displace, you often already occupy the territory but
lack the means to effectively control it. It is a deadly game of
Whack-A-Mole. At the top level the reason for the war is that they hate
you.

The strategic bombing program in Germany was certainly a disruption and
forced the government to divert scant resources away from the battlefield.
The "dehousing" program (as the British so quaintly termed it) no doubt
was demoralizing, but the industrial bombing program never achieved its
strategic goal. At the end of the war, Germany's industrial warfare
output was higher than at the start -- what it lacked was the trained
manpower to operate its weapons (once it was denied oil fields it lost the
fuel to train pilots.)

Strategic bombing of Japan didn't begin until late in 1944, when Japan was
already on the ropes, having lost much of the Pacific island territory it
had gained. Japan had planned on a "short war" to satisfy its territorial
ambitions and never fully mobilized its economy on a war footing. Having
incorrectly assumed that the US wouldn't engage them, they were
unprepared for what became, for them, a war of attrition. Because of the
structure of their military they were unable to replace pilots, because
they were denied raw materials they were unable to effectively replace
planes and carriers.

And then there was Vietnam. Bombing programs there had tactical effects,
but never really a strategic effect and didn't result in a favorable (to
western eyes) outcome, in spite of bombing the hell out of them. An USAF
navigator that I knew used to point out that his B-52 payload was larger
than the fully-laden takeoff-weight of the B-17 that he used to navigate.

So why bomb civilians in a formal war? To demoralize them, get them to
stop supporting their government. But to be effective you have to wait
until the war is a couple of years old and beginning to stink, otherwise
you'll just **** them off -- like the Germans did with the English. In a
guerilla war, if you are the conventional force, you'll just **** the
population off and get them to support the guerrillas. If you are the
guerilla force, you bomb civilians and blame the other guy to get the same
effect. If you are both guerilla forces you bomb civilians to terrorize
the population and make them pliant.




On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Dave Milne wrote:

> I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> Dave Milne
>
> "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.co m...
>> Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>>
>> Earle
>>
>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>> news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
>>> and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> for
>>> World War 2 finally this month.
>>> Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about a
>> buck
>>> a dead soldier.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
>>> news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
>>>> I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
>> assets
>>>> worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> call
>>> up
>>>> an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other arenas,
>>>> someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a senior
>>>> manager !
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> "Will Honea" <whonea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> damned
>>> well
>>>>> earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that way.
>>> When
>>>>> the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
>> some
>>>>> catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> consider
>>> the
>>>>> value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in other
>>>>> countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> and
>>>>> Aussie contemporaries at one time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.

 

Interesting point, Earle. I've always thought the American policy that
doesn't allow the assassination of heads of state to be a little
absurd, essentially for the same reasons. Especially when other states
(or fighting units, et. al.) don't necessarily extend the same
courtesy.

On Dec 29, 12:52 pm, "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa>
wrote:
> "Civilians" benefit more than soldiers from the effects of war. It stands
> to reason, that beating the hell out of soldiers doesn't do much to resolve
> whatever problems caused the war in the first place. It's like a boxing
> match, where you're only allowed to hit your opponent's fists. If you want
> to win, you go for the head. That's why I find the idea of rules of
> engagement cynical in the extreme. It just prolongs the misery, resulting
> in more damage in the end.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in messagenews:GSblh.22673$k74.1979@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk...
>
> > I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> > the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> > every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> > Dave Milne
>
> > "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> >news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>
> > > Earle
>
> > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > >news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> > > > and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> > for
> > > > World War 2 finally this month.
> > > > Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about
> a
> > > buck
> > > > a dead soldier.
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > >news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.c o.uk...
> > > > > I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
> > > assets
> > > > > worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> > call
> > > > up
> > > > > an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other
> arenas,
> > > > > someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a
> senior
> > > > > manager !
>
> > > > > Dave
>
> > > > > "Will Honea" <who...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net.. .
> > > > > > I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> > damned
> > > > well
> > > > > > earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that
> way.
> > > > When
> > > > > > the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
> > > some
> > > > > > catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> > consider
> > > > the
> > > > > > value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in
> other
> > > > > > countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> > and
> > > > > > Aussie contemporaries at one time.

 

Interesting point, Earle. I've always thought the American policy that
doesn't allow the assassination of heads of state to be a little
absurd, essentially for the same reasons. Especially when other states
(or fighting units, et. al.) don't necessarily extend the same
courtesy.

On Dec 29, 12:52 pm, "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa>
wrote:
> "Civilians" benefit more than soldiers from the effects of war. It stands
> to reason, that beating the hell out of soldiers doesn't do much to resolve
> whatever problems caused the war in the first place. It's like a boxing
> match, where you're only allowed to hit your opponent's fists. If you want
> to win, you go for the head. That's why I find the idea of rules of
> engagement cynical in the extreme. It just prolongs the misery, resulting
> in more damage in the end.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in messagenews:GSblh.22673$k74.1979@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk...
>
> > I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> > the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> > every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> > Dave Milne
>
> > "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> >news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>
> > > Earle
>
> > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > >news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> > > > and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> > for
> > > > World War 2 finally this month.
> > > > Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about
> a
> > > buck
> > > > a dead soldier.
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > >news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.c o.uk...
> > > > > I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
> > > assets
> > > > > worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> > call
> > > > up
> > > > > an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other
> arenas,
> > > > > someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a
> senior
> > > > > manager !
>
> > > > > Dave
>
> > > > > "Will Honea" <who...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net.. .
> > > > > > I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> > damned
> > > > well
> > > > > > earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that
> way.
> > > > When
> > > > > > the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
> > > some
> > > > > > catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> > consider
> > > > the
> > > > > > value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in
> other
> > > > > > countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> > and
> > > > > > Aussie contemporaries at one time.

 

Interesting point, Earle. I've always thought the American policy that
doesn't allow the assassination of heads of state to be a little
absurd, essentially for the same reasons. Especially when other states
(or fighting units, et. al.) don't necessarily extend the same
courtesy.

On Dec 29, 12:52 pm, "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa>
wrote:
> "Civilians" benefit more than soldiers from the effects of war. It stands
> to reason, that beating the hell out of soldiers doesn't do much to resolve
> whatever problems caused the war in the first place. It's like a boxing
> match, where you're only allowed to hit your opponent's fists. If you want
> to win, you go for the head. That's why I find the idea of rules of
> engagement cynical in the extreme. It just prolongs the misery, resulting
> in more damage in the end.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in messagenews:GSblh.22673$k74.1979@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk...
>
> > I seriously wonder if wars can be won without bombing civilians. We bombed
> > the hell out of industrial Germany and Japan and won. Since then, has not
> > every guerilla/--------- war been a loss ?
>
> > Dave Milne
>
> > "Earle Horton" <Earle@spammers_me_enojan.usa> wrote in message
> >news:45955120$0$3435$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > > Well Dave, now that WWII is paid off, I guess we can afford another one!
>
> > > Earle
>
> > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > >news:IR5lh.22560$k74.9193@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk...
> > > > and on a slightly related note, we finish paying off the US and Canada
> > for
> > > > World War 2 finally this month.
> > > > Germany had to pay $20 billion in reparations in total which is about
> a
> > > buck
> > > > a dead soldier.
>
> > > > Dave
>
> > > > "Dave Milne" <jeep@_removethisbit_milne.info> wrote in message
> > > >news:5E5lh.22555$k74.12417@text.news.blueyonder.c o.uk...
> > > > > I agree. I also suspect that the average US soldier is in charge of
> > > assets
> > > > > worth more than the British soldier, and if I'm not wrong, many can
> > call
> > > > up
> > > > > an airstrike at a cost of many millions a time ? In most other
> arenas,
> > > > > someone who could sign off that type of expenditure would be a
> senior
> > > > > manager !
>
> > > > > Dave
>
> > > > > "Will Honea" <who...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:4594c673$0$63458$815e3792@news.qwest.net.. .
> > > > > > I don't begrudge military retirees a penny of their pay - they
> > damned
> > > > well
> > > > > > earned it. I separated before retirement but I still feel that
> way.
> > > > When
> > > > > > the government gets around to granting a pay raise, it usually has
> > > some
> > > > > > catchup element to it so it averages out, especially when you
> > consider
> > > > the
> > > > > > value of the benefits after retirement. It must be similar in
> other
> > > > > > countries - I can recall making considerably more than my British
> > and
> > > > > > Aussie contemporaries at one time.

 

Le, I didn't mean to start a long OT thread here, but you oversimplify the
effects of air power in all your instances. Dad flew 52 missions in
B-17's with the Eighth AF (25 as a Bombardier, 27 as a retrained pilot) so
I got an ear full of commentary on this. In Europe, the major effect was
not on the manufacturing sources but the tactical destruction of the
transportation network. In the Pacific, the same held true except that
the transport element was much more critical. The one strategic master
stroke was an anemic strike by Dolittle on Tokyo. Small damage to ground
targets, but it caused the Imperial Forces to hold a substantial force in
place at home that could well have been decisive if deployed as originally
planned. Most military analysis of the nuclear strikes conclude that they
were far more effective as political events than strictly military.

Don't get me started on Vietnam: any resemblance between our actions there
and a military campaign were accidents - the politicians ran that show
with little regard for military effectiveness.

Dave, there is a reason why tactical airstrikes are normally managed by
specially trained personnel. Even then, I can recall being asked to make
dive bomb runs perpendicular to a 600 ft cliff or straffing runs into a
blind canyon or hot napalm releases over the heads of friendly troops.
It's amazing how many details go into dropping one little bomb <g>.

--
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com>

 

Le, I didn't mean to start a long OT thread here, but you oversimplify the
effects of air power in all your instances. Dad flew 52 missions in
B-17's with the Eighth AF (25 as a Bombardier, 27 as a retrained pilot) so
I got an ear full of commentary on this. In Europe, the major effect was
not on the manufacturing sources but the tactical destruction of the
transportation network. In the Pacific, the same held true except that
the transport element was much more critical. The one strategic master
stroke was an anemic strike by Dolittle on Tokyo. Small damage to ground
targets, but it caused the Imperial Forces to hold a substantial force in
place at home that could well have been decisive if deployed as originally
planned. Most military analysis of the nuclear strikes conclude that they
were far more effective as political events than strictly military.

Don't get me started on Vietnam: any resemblance between our actions there
and a military campaign were accidents - the politicians ran that show
with little regard for military effectiveness.

Dave, there is a reason why tactical airstrikes are normally managed by
specially trained personnel. Even then, I can recall being asked to make
dive bomb runs perpendicular to a 600 ft cliff or straffing runs into a
blind canyon or hot napalm releases over the heads of friendly troops.
It's amazing how many details go into dropping one little bomb <g>.

--
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com>

 

Le, I didn't mean to start a long OT thread here, but you oversimplify the
effects of air power in all your instances. Dad flew 52 missions in
B-17's with the Eighth AF (25 as a Bombardier, 27 as a retrained pilot) so
I got an ear full of commentary on this. In Europe, the major effect was
not on the manufacturing sources but the tactical destruction of the
transportation network. In the Pacific, the same held true except that
the transport element was much more critical. The one strategic master
stroke was an anemic strike by Dolittle on Tokyo. Small damage to ground
targets, but it caused the Imperial Forces to hold a substantial force in
place at home that could well have been decisive if deployed as originally
planned. Most military analysis of the nuclear strikes conclude that they
were far more effective as political events than strictly military.

Don't get me started on Vietnam: any resemblance between our actions there
and a military campaign were accidents - the politicians ran that show
with little regard for military effectiveness.

Dave, there is a reason why tactical airstrikes are normally managed by
specially trained personnel. Even then, I can recall being asked to make
dive bomb runs perpendicular to a 600 ft cliff or straffing runs into a
blind canyon or hot napalm releases over the heads of friendly troops.
It's amazing how many details go into dropping one little bomb <g>.

--
Will Honea <whonea@yahoo.com>