What is strategic bombing?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2009 19:50

Admins - please humor me for a few days. I am hoping that this will lead to an interesting discussion and perhaps some all round increase in gyan, or at least an understanding of people's views.

People - please take part in the poll. Whatever you chose as your option, please make a post to state your views - and especially if you chose "None of the above' or "It's a sham"

Akshut · Post by **Akshut** » 09 Jul 2009 19:54

Until and unless PoK, FATA and Waziristan are full of pukis, till then the term is a sham.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Jul 2009 20:07

Shame to me onlee. I don't know what it is.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 09 Jul 2009 20:09

MBVVM : Bombing industries and infrastructure only (Mere Bahut Veenumra Vichhar May)

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 09 Jul 2009 20:12

Can it be more than one choice ??

bhavin · Post by **bhavin** » 09 Jul 2009 20:22

I chose Industries and Infrastructure !! The platform does not matter, but once in war, we need to finish out the industries and infrastructure such that it could take the enemy decade(s) to rebuild them..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2009 20:28

pgbhat wrote:Can it be more than one choice ??

Choose "none of the above" and write your views please...

Nihat · Post by **Nihat** » 09 Jul 2009 20:39

I picked none of the above ahead of industries because (pardon my naivity) strategic bombing enables the aggresor to cripple the enemy's war machinery like ordanance factories , fuel depots , roads and highways , airports , ports etc etc.

Bombing industry would bring under is purview a whole lot more and even include civilian and export oriented industries .

Waiting to be corrected here.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 09 Jul 2009 20:46

None of the above:
As a non military guy here is what i think is "strategic bombing"
Nuke attack or Bombing critical infrastructure.... both civilian and military, which can be game changers in a conflict.....use of aircraft optional.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 09 Jul 2009 20:54

None of the above

Strategic Bombing is degrading the long term military potential of an enemy.

Depending on circumstances, it can be as huge as nuking a city/ country to as small as taking out a cave complex housing rival politco/ military leaders with a PGM.

Added later:Independent of platform.

IMHO.

Drevin · Post by **Drevin** » 09 Jul 2009 21:00

Ok I chose B52, B1 and B2 because strategic ground assets are more "hardy". Large and well fortified ground installations either need a nuke to destroy or loads of non-nuclear bombs. These planes seem made for this purpose.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2009 21:08

Nukes can be delivered by any aircraft. However in conventional war, below the nuke threshold, there is a need to deliver a lot of ordnance (bombs, rockets etc) with precison over long distances. So my thoughts are there is a need for a/c that can deliver a lot of ordnance at long distances. Usually such capability is with 'strategic' bombers only.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 09 Jul 2009 21:20

What is strategic bombing?

It is all about bombing the strategic targets
In simple words:
1].That involves bombing targets of strategic meanings,that alters many things,.

2].To achieve such objectives at minimum time ,strategic bombers are meant for this job, with'greater speed and payload' per se.

3].To harass the enemy or blackmail in simple measures of bombing at a go.

4.] To win war with less casualty ,by achieving the target of destroying enemy soon with less human involvement .

5.] To nullify enemy advantage.

6.] For those who love earthquakes in enemy camp .
etc,...

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 09 Jul 2009 22:00

I agree with ramana.

Delivering large payloads over long distances. Targets can be military or civil.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 09 Jul 2009 22:09

I choose "Bombing industries and infrastructure".

Nihat wrote:I picked none of the above ahead of industries because (pardon my naivity) strategic bombing enables the aggresor to cripple the enemy's war machinery like ordanance factories , fuel depots , roads and highways , airports , ports etc etc.

Bombing industry would bring under is purview a whole lot more and even include civilian and export oriented industries .

Waiting to be corrected here.

All those come under industries and infrastructure, don't you think?

pgbhat wrote:None of the above:
As a non military guy here is what i think is "strategic bombing"
Nuke attack or Bombing critical infrastructure.... both civilian and military, which can be game changers in a conflict.....use of aircraft optional.

But isn't that included in "Bombing industries and infrastructure"?

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 09 Jul 2009 22:42

Strategic Bombing to me is hitting the bulls-eye repeatedly. There are two aspects to this
1. Bulls-eye
2. Repeatedly.

TV adverts strategic bomb us daily when they ask us to buy a certain baby food - they know our weakness, and they exploit it, then they have doctors to recommend the same, etc etc. It is a tag-team approach to bring down the target. That to me is what strategic bombing represents.

This can be using aircrafts, missiles or even by repeatedly IED Mubaraks to the enemy. For example repeated IED Mubaraks targeting the ISI Senior officer carder would be strategic bombing to me - a sad fact that India or the US does not indulge in this at all.

I chose the 'none of the above' option

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 09 Jul 2009 22:59

saggu ji, that's the best answer IMHO. it's not what you are using but how you are using it.

as kiranM says, it's not the platform but the target that determines what is strategic bombing.

negi · Post by **negi** » 09 Jul 2009 23:06

During a course of war/conflict one might choose to take out key enemy assets which might have a direct and significant bearing on the end result ; nuclear/power installations,Military Industrial complex,Oil fields/reserves , and forward airfields and ports are few such entities which come to my mind.

The choice of the platform of course has changed while in WW-II it was the long range bombers , today ICBMs or Sub/Air launched ballistic missiles or even smart bombs would carry out such a task .

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 09 Jul 2009 23:08

In the context of just aerial bombardment (not bak pakis flying in and pulling the chord):

"Strategic bombing is a highly efficient and cost-effective method to murder a lot of civilians under the guise of war, with the added benefit of scorching the earth" Very good business model - particularly for post-war reconstruction business booms.

It was invented by UK and perfected by US using nuclear weapons. But post-WWII urban clustering in both these countries made them feel vulnerable as they realized they had created far more juicier targets than their adversaries. hence the push from 60s to have massive urban sprawls* in their cities instead of efficient highrise downtowns. And then there is this clamour for selling to us, third-world rural-centric societies the funda "higher percentage of urbanization == development" (basically they want to threaten us in a cost-effective fashion with less warheads). China has already succumbed to it. Now they have 25+ cities with million plus population

added later: I am talking about "strategic bombing", not the class of heavy aircrafts called a "strategic bomber"
____________
* by building and selling to their public the notion that freeways are a device for mass evacuation during strategic bombing. an infeasible but convenient story that masks the fear that a highrise downtown can be threatened with even second rate nuclear arsenals. I mean, how fast can one evacuate a million people city using freeways, when the warheads are on the way?

Mind you, I am not saying intercity highways are bad for transportation, just that selling freeways as evacuation devices during strategic bombing is a lie and is at best, a device to spread population to the suburbs.

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 10 Jul 2009 00:00

As a non-military person, IMHO I think it is the ability to cripple the enemy, i.e. in the short-term cripple the ability to wage war with least effort, long term, make the enemy think twice about starting a war again.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 10 Jul 2009 00:48

My vote is for the option None of the above.

The work done by strategic bombers, such as B-52, B-1 and B-2---- We can use ICBM or other Short range missiles too to eliminate Strategic element.

Bombing cities----- Cities are one of the element to be considered as Strategic but not the only one.

Bombing industries and infrastructure----- Military installation, Military figures, Political leaders (who are responsible to run nations), are other strategic elements so, these are not only pure option to select.

Carpet bombing----- It is a way to do strategic bombing not the meaning or not the only way in current context.

Nuclear attack------ Without nuclear attack we can achieve our strategic bombing goal and Nuclear attack causes isolation among world community than achieving our goal.

I don't believe in strategic bombing - it's a sham----- In War and love everything is fare.

None of the above----- None of above option is perfect example of strategic bombing, some are close but not only. So I will go with None of the above option.

Ankit

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jul 2009 01:12

even though i voted 'none of the above'
but meanings of a strategic bombing-bomber for India does have some relevance that the thread looks for such as
Xposted:

Its like a game of chess,that china has trapped us into, one by one its proxies will rage and collapse ,but the dragon waits and watches the development.

If the biggest buffoon (porks) cant do the crack,they will step in,just before all these proxies vaporize, bringing the mighty red ants on the mission ,

It is where a strategic bomber leaves its airbase, when the subs,destroyers,the missiles,the fighter acs fleet is weak, strategic bombers do the job whatever you want,other than the stealth role(when we don't have the b2) ,it will deliver the goods , wherever ,how quickly you want.

thats what a strategic bomber is to us, bringing a bigger adversary down to its knees by methods other than conventional war.
The us,uk ,meant that too against ussr.

vishnu.nv · Post by **vishnu.nv** » 10 Jul 2009 01:30

Won't the nuclear attack come under the B-1 B-2 ?

Guys we do have missiles which can deliver the parcel any where in china.

But again Think of a strategic Bomb truck like Tu-160 carrying 6 Nuclear tipped nirbhay's.

Wont it be a huge deterrent?

My vote is for B-,B-2

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 10 Jul 2009 01:45

I voted for none of the above

Strategic bombing IMO is to bomb the adversery in such a way that my adversery ceases to exist as a threat to my national interests for atleast few decades. Examples: Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq...

This may costitue a nuke attack or carpet bombing or premptive attack or a simple hit on certain groups. It depends..

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 10 Jul 2009 01:47

Military Channel had a program on Strategic Bombing, which clarified that Strategic Bombing is incessant bombing through any means whether Aeroplanes / missiles which brings the enemy to submission. Where the citizens are so petrified that they approach their government to bring an end to the conflict. If this is not the definition of Strategic Bombing, it is actually the objective of it.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 10 Jul 2009 02:27

yawn, another amroo name to confuse people when all it is bombing not on the immediate frontlines, but behind them so as to reduce frontlines effectiveness.

and we need a thread for it because of the confusion

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 10 Jul 2009 02:28

I voted for none of the above. If we go by the definition of Strategic Bombing, it involves the bombing of strategic assets of the enemy. But if we are talking about what kind of capability India needs to have, then its the following IMO:

a) Precision bombing: take out key targets. Example: ISI HQ, Dawood's home, airbases etc
b) Strategic bombing: this may involve precision bombing + area bombing. Example: bomb an oil refinery and all its surrounding ancillary units, pipelines, stores etc
c) Terror bombing: name explains it all. Destroy enemy morale to continue. Example: Tokyo, Dresden in WW2

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 10 Jul 2009 02:49

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Jul 2009 07:15

Drop MBA's, thats strategic bombing

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 Jul 2009 08:18

IMHO in a humorous way strategic BUMing is a mechanism by which people with non-strategic thinking are wiped out.

Or another definition is
Strategic BUMing is when my neighbors husband is killed in IDE mubarak so I can take the coveted strategic prize. My tactical (non-strategic) brain onlee...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 10 Jul 2009 08:32

Well my own thoughts suggesed one of two answers to me - either "It's a sham" or "none of the above"

On balance I voted for "it's a sham" for the following reasons:

If you go back to the history of aircraft in war - you get the first use of aircraft just before WW1 after which "World" war 1 broke out. Initially in WW1 planes were used mainly for recce and a man in a cockpit could throw bombs out or use a gun.Later armament became an integral part of aircraft - but nobody really know what effect air power would have on war. Nobody knew exactly what could be achieved. It was up to people with ideas to use this new technology. However the Germans did think of bombing faraway targets using Zeppelins in WW1

It was the Germans in WW2 who used air power o provide support for attacking ground troops in the form of Stukas. By modern day standards the Stukas were lightly armed - but it is said that they had great psychological impact on enemy troops because they came hurtling down with sirens blaring - literally "screaming" at the target below. The Germans against started air raids on civilian targets in Britain. The idea was probably to intimidate the enemy and break his will, throw his life out of gear so he could be subjugated. Looked at from 2009 this tactic sounds like an aerial version of what Atilla the Hun or any number of ancient Ghazis did. But I will return to this point later.

These World War 2 tactics set the stage for definitions like "bomber, "fighter", "tactical air power" and "strategic air power"

Tactical Air power was the use of Stukas in the frontline as a tactic to break through enemy lines.

Strategic air power was the use of air power to hit any mix of civilian or military targets way beyond the frontlines to inflict damage an the enemy and break is ability and will to fight. Bombing government building would disrupt his command. Bombing radio stations was supposed to disrupt his communication and propaganda apparatus. Bombing his cities would cause chaos and break the morale of his people who would the cower and beg for mercy, or would surrender, bombing his power supply and industries would put the out of action affecting his ability to fight.

The simple idea behind such terminology was "Tactics will win a battle, but strategy will win a war"

With these goals in mind "strategic bombers" were designed to carry bombs over long distances. The need to shoot down these bombers led to the development of fighter interceptors. The need for bomber self protection led to gunners on bombers. "tactical air power" required lightly armed fighters to strafe or rocket frontline targets where "strategic bombers" might end up carpet bombing one's own lines - when soldiers of two sides were close to each other.

All these strategies and tactic were cooked up under the pressure of war with no real guarantee that they would work as planned. And as history has shown the results were very much a mixed bag. Strategic bombing was not really effective in either paralysing the enemy or breaking his will to fight. On the other hand tactical use of air power could defeat an enemy locally allowing advancement and occupation.

So its turns out that the concept of "strategic bombing" and the machines that were spawned from that concept - the "strategic bombers" were not as successful in conducting or concluding the strategy of war. For all the men and material wasted on strategic bombing - assets could often have been used better to achieve military gains on the ground. This became more and more true as anti-aircraft defences improved and the world figured out that bombing civilians and civilian targets from the air was nowhere near as effective as the propagandists wanted.

But world war 2 ended literally with a "bang" - the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This led to a continuation of interest in "strategic bombers" as all the"Great powers" decided that all future wars would be decided by atomic bombs carried by strategic bombers. This led to a whole new generation of strategic bombers - some of which - like the B-52 - exist to this day.

But history once again shows that just as "strategic bombing" did not achieve expected results, wars were not being fought with strategic bombers dropping nukes. Gradually - most nations did away with "strategic bombers" except the US - which has retained them - possible for legacy reasons as well as a politico military need to keep something that others don't have. While the US's "strategic bombers" have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan their use has only been of tactical value in achieving some gains, but not in the strategic value of imposing one's will on the enemy and stopping his warfighting ability.

The only way in which humans have "broken an enemy's will to fight" is by occupation and genocide. That is why air power cannot do what Attila the Hun did. "Strategic air forces" are a bit of a sham and must not be emulated by other air forces just because the US retains them.

kit · Post by **kit** » 10 Jul 2009 09:12

Strategic bombing is taking out strategic targets, need not be just military or industrial .Strategic targets are those where the nations nerve centers of military,industrial,scientific and biological capability.Destroy those and you have a nation whose capability to retaliate would be seriously reduced.The targets may not be well known either but would be decided mainly by astute intelligence analysis.You will need to know a comprehensive picture of a nations real capability and industrial depth to wage a war.Without good intelligence i think strategic bombing is just a myth !

carpet bombing or employing strategic bombers or employing nuke missiles to target civilian population en masse or major cities doesnt qualify as strategic bombing !

Nations that can do the 'fine' art of strategic bombing are just a handful.Dont think India can do this.Russia could but no longer.US of A definitelly.China is maybe but on the way there.UK and france no except as a part of NATO.That would leave only the USA to have the capability to 'strategically' bomb other nations.

NB : The capability analysis of nations given above is just based on my rather extensive reading of mainly technological and economic literature.
Now capability doesnt mean USA can strategically bomb any other nation,most nations yes but some nations notably China,India and Russia can withstand a major assault and so have strategic 'depth'.USA s capability to wage strategic bombing maybe somewhat limited in coming decades due to advent of assymetric capabilities and technology among the major riajor rival nations.The Americans have realised this and has started a covert and sometimes overt machinations to curtail and control advent of advanced technologies tn these countries.One just has to look at the way the MRCA contest is shaping up

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Jul 2009 09:44

As per Neville Jones, The Origins of Strategic Bombing (London: William Kimber, 1973), :

Strategic bombing may be defined as the direct attack against the most important elements of an enemy’s war-making capacity, for example, his industries, communications, and the morale of his civilian population, as opposed to the units and equipment of his armed forces. The object of such bombing, which is the product of an age in which the distinction between soldier and civilian has disappeared, is to undermine the enemy’s war effort.

wig · Post by **wig** » 10 Jul 2009 10:03

to me strategic in the above context would mean , bombing carried out that would result in an irreversible weakening of the will of the enemy to engage in war or war like acts.
precision bombing is not quite as precise as made out to be. the collateral damage witnessed in the Gulf Wa 1 and 2 and the continuing Afghan campaign would lend support to my submissions. yes they do take out, " high value targets" but it appears only to strengthen the resolve of the opposite party in the fray.
WW1 did have the Germans bombing Britain using Zeppelins as means to deliver ordinance. WW2 had the British launching a raid on Berlin. The Blitz was also concieved of because General Feld Marshal (GFM) Goring, Hermann in a war meeting convinced the Fuhrer Hitler, that he could win the war by bombing Britian. The Blitz did not succeed. Nor for that matter did the Bombing strategic or otherwise. The Germans used the V1 and V2 rocket also much like modern day Scuds would function. The ordinance was based on chemcial reactions and hence to me it appears that far from weakening the British will it steeled them up. GFM Goring is reported to have observed to his staff the the English Fight best with their backs to the wall. It would also be instructive to take the Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the US Navy and sundry installations at Pearl harbour, Hawai. The Japanese did cause massive damage throught their bombing and things looked very good for the Axis powers. The US forces did launch an air strike using heavily modified bombers taking off from an Aircraft Carrier to bomb Japan. Towards the end of WW2 massive bombing of Japanese Assets was carried out by the US. But the then US President Truman, HS came around to authrorise the Nuclear option when presentations showed that an Invasion of Japan would need massive losses of manpower.
I opine that bombing if it has to be strategic and is to lead to weakening if not outright inability to wage war would mean nuclear bombing. yes there will be massive breakdowns in the way life will continue - but the objective just might be served- which present technological achievemens in strategic bombing using chemical reaction based ordinance might take time and loss of own service personnel to achieve.

Vinito · Post by **Vinito** » 10 Jul 2009 10:39

I chose bombing industries and infrastructure

The only way for a country to win a war is based on two critical aspects

1) Infrastructure - this enables quick transportation of war materials to relinquish the defence or offense efforts and also maintain a steady supply which will enable the country to keep the war going on. Break this and the supplies will reduce and with that the morale to fight will also reduce.

2) Industries - Targetting industries will break the country's ability to produce war materials to supply to the frontline. For example. if we target the industries producing defence goods we are in effect cutting down the efforts of the country to keep the war going. Targetting industries also has the added benefit of reducing the country's economic position and no country wants that as they dont want to end up with a ravaged economy after the war is over since that will lead to internal unrest and hence cause further damage.

sombhat · Post by **sombhat** » 10 Jul 2009 11:08

When Strategic Bombers drop Strategic weapons on Strategic Enemy Targets, its called Strategic bombing -- V V Zimple

VikB · Post by **VikB** » 10 Jul 2009 11:10

I chose "None of these" as I believe that none of the options covered all the aspects of Strategic Bombing.

In my view the issue has two parts
1 - Strategic Bombing
2 - Assets for Strategic Bombing

1. Strategic Bombing is what is not tactical (pretty original there). An army commander at the battle line will probably want the supply lines, artillery and armour pieces of the enemy taken out. However the General sitting much away from the immdiate fighting would also want to break the will of the enemy and deviate the attention and resources of enemy's war making capability. This can be achieved by destroying dams, power stations, few civilian population centers, landmarks (like Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower, etc).

There is a huge cost of saving the above targets that a nation pays even in peace. The bunkers of top Army and Executive personalls, anti-aircraft, anti-missile arrangements at cities, back up power generators, etc are some of the costs we incur in peace time knowing what the enemy can do during war.

In a sense what Pakistan has been able to do - make hundreds of sleeper cells in our country that can be activated at time war is also what was earlier covered under Strategic bombing. This to my mind currently is the biggest headache of our armed forces (the move for regional NSG centers is the right move for countering this).

Essentially the idea is - to disrupt the normal war making capability of the enemy by either destroying resources for war raging (like electricity) and/or causing mayhem to draw resources away from the frontline (floods, panic in cities).

Btw, I think Germans were far ahead in their thoughts. Their initial idea of bombing London was brilliant. However due to technological limitations of the times, even hundreds of planes with thousand of tons of explosives (with explosive capability of that time) could not achieve what was actually desired. Today a similar bombing will bring about hugely different effects.

2. Assets for Strategic Bombing - This is where the confusion is. Earlier the rocket technology was not advanced enough to carry a substantial quantity of potent explosives over a distance accurately. V2 rockets were at best tactical though they were used to 'lob' explosives on cities too.

Today the option of bombing/destruction far off centers are many - aircrafts, missiles, terrorism (the type mentioned in India Pak situation above), even cyber warfare is strategic destruction. Probably that is a better word - Strategic Destruction rather than Strategic Bombing. Even controlling the money of adversary comes here. I can think of US with its Treasury bonds being bought by all countries and Switzerland being world's bankers as having the adversary by the throat by controlling his money supply.

We need to think in terms of pure physical destruction where today the capabilities of bombers lie vis a vis missiles in terms of range, cost and explosive quantity carried.

My two cents.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 10 Jul 2009 11:23

Strategic bombing has 2 main objectives:
1) Degrade the long term military potential of the enemy (taking out industries and infrastructure)
2) Degrade the morale of the populace, making the war more personal (striking at population centers, destroying important landmarks, places close to the peoples heart, bomb the civil airport, railway stations in Mumbai, etc)

In WW II, since there was little precision capability, this resulted in widespread bombing of cities. In todays war, it would be a waste of money. Carpet bombing is passe.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually, we can define strategic bombing better, by defining its opposite. What is tactical bombing?

Tactical bombing would be anything which specifically and directly helps the course of the war- capture more territory, defend against attack, etc. Bombing enemy columns, airfields, etc.

Anything else is strategic bombing- or a mistake.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 10 Jul 2009 11:30

The effects of nuclear weapons » Electromagnetic pulse

A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is the time-varying electromagnetic radiation resulting from a nuclear explosion. The development of the EMP is shaped by the initial nuclear radiation from the explosion—specifically, the gamma radiation. High-energy electrons are produced in the environment of the explosion when gamma rays collide with air molecules (a process called the Compton effect). Positive and negative charges in the atmosphere are separated as the lighter, negatively charged electrons are swept away from the explosion point and the heavier, positively charged ionized air molecules are left behind. This charge separation produces a large electric field. Asymmetries in the electric field are caused by factors such as the variation in air density with altitude and the proximity of the explosion to Earth’s surface. These asymmetries result in time-varying electrical currents that produce the EMP. The characteristics of the EMP depend strongly on the height of the explosion above the surface.

EMP was first noticed in the United States in the 1950s when electronic equipment failed because of induced currents and voltages during some nuclear tests. In 1960 the potential vulnerability of American military equipment and weapons systems to EMP was officially recognized. EMP can damage unprotected electronic equipment, such as radios, radars, televisions, telephones, computers, and other communication equipment and systems. EMP damage can occur at distances of tens, hundreds, or thousands of kilometres from a nuclear explosion, depending on the weapon yield and the altitude of the detonation. For example, in 1962 a failure of electronic components in street lights in Hawaii and activation of numerous automobile burglar alarms in Honolulu were attributed to a high-altitude U.S. nuclear test at Johnston Atoll, some 1,300 km (800 miles) to the southwest. For a high-yield explosion of approximately 10 megatons detonated 320 km (200 miles) above the centre of the continental United States, almost the entire country, as well as parts of Mexico and Canada, would be affected by EMP. Procedures to improve the ability of networks, especially military command and control systems, to withstand EMP are known as “hardening.”

Therefore, would such a blast be also strategic bombing?

Food for thought!

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 10 Jul 2009 11:31

Why do we call ours "The Strategic Nuclear Command"?

Strategic bombing means..