What is strategic bombing?

[andy B]

nope, there's tactical nukes as well !

I said, by default...

Rahul ji and Kanson ji FWIW would the use of Tact Nukes be considered as crossing a strategic threshold? i.e. using nukes!

JMT

[RayC]

In his book Jasjit Singh refers to the origins of these definitions.

He classifies the use of "Tactical" air power as
1) Counter air
2) Air defence
3) Forward air support
4) Interdiction

It is with reference to "interdiction" that the terms "Tactical" and "strategic" became associated.

With "interdiction" the destruction of a bridge or a supply line behind enemy lines also changed the course of battle but it took some time to have an effect on battle unlike the actual strafing/rocketing of enemy lines.

Destroying a tank factory or oil installation in the deep interior of enemy territory also falls in the same category of "interdiction" that takes a longer time to have an effect. But it turned out that "short distance interdiction" (supply depots/bridges) could be done by fighters/fighter-bombers and the "tank factory" type interdiction required a longer range aircraft, and because of the inherent inaccuracy of dumb bombs, these longer ranged aircraft also tended to carry a much heavier bomb load.

So traditionally the word "strategic" cam to be applied to the deep interdiction strikes using heavy bombers while tactical came to be applied to interdiction that was closer, but still behind enemy lines to cause a delayed effect. The distinction was based on the distance travelled and the need for different aircraft platforms to do that

Gradually the distinction between "bomber" and "fighter/fighter-bomber became blurred, because both ended up flying similar missions and the latter were inherently more accurate. So the time taken for a given act of interdiction to have an effect upon the battle became a new distinguishing feature between "tactical" and "strategic"

Close air support on the battlefield is immediately obvious to the soldier on the ground and has an immediate but perhaps not a long lasting effect. This tends to be called "tactical". The effect of a "behind enemy lines" interdiction destroying infrastructure, storage and production facilities tends to get called "strategic".

I would not know what Jasjit Singh has written, but as far as my knowledge goes it is as below.

Types of Air Operations

The various types of air operations are:
(a) Offensive Counter Air Operations.
(b) Air Defence Operations.
(c) Land Air Operations.
(d) Maritime Air Operations.
(e) Strategic Air Interdiction.
(f) Combat Support Operations.
(g) Low Intensity Conflict Ops (LICO)
(h) Aid to civil power.

Offensive Counter Air Ops

Offensive counter air ops are aimed at destroying, disrupting or limiting the enemy air power as close to its source as practicable. Enemy air power implies not only his aircraft but also his ground based weapon systems which can hinder our achievement of air superiority, radars and communications and intelligence network.

This would encompass:-
(a) Airfields attacks.
(b) Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD).
(c) Fighter sweep/offensive sweep.
(d) Escort.

Air Defence Operations

Air defence involves the employment of a combination of passive and active measures to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of an enemy air attack. Fighter aircraft can be used to protect very large areas or to be concentrated rapidly to counter enemy saturation raids. Fighters can be used for the following types of air defence tasks :-
(a) Interception.
(b) Combat Air Patrol (CAP).

Land Air Operations

Some degree of control of the air is necessary for success of any ground offensive. Counter surface force air action can be used either to supplement or to substitute surface force action. It works best when used in direct cooperation with friendly surface operations and where the enemy is forced to expose and manoeuvre his forces while under fire. The various roles that the air force can perform in support of friendly/own ground forces are :-
(a) Air Interdiction.
(b) Battlefield Air interdiction (BAI).
(c) Battlefield Air Strike (BAS).
(d) Tactical Recce.
(e) Search and Strike.

Maritime Air Operations

To undertake maritime air operations, the IAF would be employed in close cooperation with Indian Naval Forces to ensure the most effective use of available air assets. The various types of operations that can be carried out are :-
(a) Strikes against enemy naval ships and merchant shipping.
(b) Interception of en MR aircraf as opportunity tgts within the range of shore
based aircraft.
(c) Air Defence Over land and water within the ROA of AD interceptor aircraft.
(d) Amalgamation of air effort for air sea search and rescue, if required.
(e) Maritime strike against en ports, harbours and naval installations.
(f) Tactical and strategic photo recce.
(g) Transport and logistic support.

Strategic Air Interdiction

Air strikes selected strategic targets such as industrial infrastructure, power grids and communication networks would need to be carried out so as to degrade the enemy’s capability to wage war. Comprehensive and timely intelligence would be required to shortlist the potential strategic targets.

Combat Support Operations

Combat Support Operations are the operations which are undertaken in support of air or surface combat forces to enhance their combat power and to sustain them. These enhance combat power by increasing either the mobility, lethality, survivability, accuracy or flexibility of air and surface forces. These comprise of the under mentioned air operations :-
(a) Air Transport Operations.
(b) Air to Air Refuelling (AAR).
(c) Surveillance and Reconnaissance.
(d) Airborne Early Warning (AEW).
(e) Electronic Warfare (EW).
(f) Search and Rescue.

[SivaVijay]

Use of nukes in tactical role will essentially result in retaliatory tactical nuke strikes , but it takes out any threshold the enemy had in using the nuke beyond the theater level. He may see your ICBM silos as a threat and will move to eliminate it and vice versa and the envelope just gets bigger and bigger until finally the population might get targeted. ofcourse where it all stops rest on the restraint of the two players but what is the guarantee that both are in sync . So a tactical nuke strike may very well result in a counter strike beyond theater and result in a nuclear war(In cold war even use of nuke torpedoes/shells was considered enough to validate an escalation into nuclear war).

And this is the precise reason why a nuclear strike should not be considered as tactical or strategic(though platform and warheads may be called so) , a nuclear strike is a nuclear strike, an act of desperation to an extent that the one who uses it is willing to risk MAD(In case of both players being nuke capable).

[alexis]

Strategic bombing is destroying the morale of the enemy which can be done only through destroying infrastructure.

[JimmyJ]

Israel bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities - wouldn't that be what a strategic bombing be in the current world scenario.

[Kanson]

I said, by default...

Rahul ji and Kanson ji FWIW would the use of Tact Nukes be considered as crossing a strategic threshold? i.e. using nukes!

JMT

First of all, the so called tactical nukes is not tactical in nature: The amount of punch a tactial NW packs is serveral times greater than what a strategic bomber of conventional payload could carry. i.e. serveral hundered tons of TNT equivalent vs few tens of tons.

2. These tactical nukes can be and will be used if necessary to target strategic targets. Becoz of name it got attached doesnt mean it shouldnt be used against strategic targets.

3. At tactical level, it was envisaged to be used against amassed armoured columns of the type seen in WW2. Or in general, against any aggression. Now-a-days, these can be tackled by conventional arms.

4. War itself is an act of irrantionality. Expecting the players to act rational in case of tactical nuke attack is height of stupidity. Further the places (Middle East. South Asia, East Asia) where the nuclear flare-ups could happen consits of irrational players to insane ones.

5. To precisely control the situation of tactical nuke strikes to remain at tactical level, requires high degree of judgement and be able to predict adversary behaviour to that. Failing which it will put his own country in dagner of annhillation. Unless the stiuation warrants, or if the expected result is strategic in nature, use of such weapon is not recommended. Possesing N wepon is aburdern during peacetime as well as during wartime. You should know exactly how to use it otherwise it will bring destruction to your ownself. Thats why use of N weapon is considered Strategic in nature.

[KiranM]

Tactical Nuclear Weapons is a misnomer. It is using nuclear weapons on targets of tactical value. The moment a nuclear weapon is intended to be used on targets like enemy tanks, warships, etc; is transformed from tactical targets to strategic.

So I revise slightly my view that strategic bombing depends on targets. It does not necessarily depend only on targets classified as 'tactical' or 'strategic'. But also on the manner of usage and its intended effects.

This is IMVHO only.

[darshhan]

To precisely control the situation of tactical nuke strikes to remain at tactical level, requires high degree of judgement and be able to predict adversary behaviour to that. Failing which it will put his own country in dagner of annhillation. Unless the stiuation warrants, or if the expected result is strategic in nature, use of such weapon is not recommended. Possesing N wepon is aburdern during peacetime as well as during wartime. You should know exactly how to use it otherwise it will bring destruction to your ownself. Thats why use of N weapon is considered Strategic in nature.

You are right.It's very difficult to control the situation once nukes , tactical or otherwise are brought into play.One can look at India's nuclear doctrine itself.It makes no difference b/w tactical and strategic nukes.According to this doctrine once the enemy uses any kind of nukes against Indian interests India reserves the right to massive retaliation which will be mainly carried out by strategic nukes

[wig]

this might be offtrack but please do humour my query; what would be a possible response and directed at whom as per the published Indian Nuclear doctrine if we are hit with a nuclear device (dirty or whatever) by one of the "non state actors" who are in vogue now-a-days!
as an aside would this strike be strategic or tactical

[RayC]

Tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons are differentiated by their yields.

The tactical nuclear weapons included nuclear mines;artillery; short, medium, and long range ballistic missiles; cruise missiles; and gravity bombs. The United States deployed these weapons with its troops in the field, aboard aircraft, on surfaceships, on submarines, and in fixed, land-based launchers.

Stategic nuclear weapons are those which are delivered from their bases and not from the immediate theatre and the yield is more powerful!

[darshhan]

this might be offtrack but please do humour my query; what would be a possible response and directed at whom as per the published Indian Nuclear doctrine if we are hit with a nuclear device (dirty or whatever) by one of the "non state actors" who are in vogue now-a-days!
as an aside would this strike be strategic or tactical

The so called non-state actor will be most probably sponsored by some state.That state will be held responsible.For eg if LET eplodes any WMD on Indian soil Pakistan will be held responsible.

But in absence of political will even the best of doctrines can be rendered futile.For eg. we know who is responsible for 26/11 as well as countless other terrorist strikes.But hardly any counter terrorist action has been taken in the enemy territory.Based on the past track record of the politician-bureaucrat nexus which runs this country I wouldn't be surprised if they choose not to exercise their deterrence.In fact there will be some who will even go to the extent of saying that attacking Pakistan is not compatible with our secular values.

[Rahul M]

Rahul ji and Kanson ji FWIW would the use of Tact Nukes be considered as crossing a strategic threshold? i.e. using nukes!

JMT

IIRC the Indian nuke doctrine considers any use of nuclear force within her geography or on her forces as crossing the threshold.

but that's just the theoretical definition, ho knows what the practical implications would be.
even if a nuclear reply is given it might be a proportional counter or a dis-proportionate response.

[Hitesh]

Shiv,

You are completely wrong about Operations ROLLING THUNDER and LB 1&2. Hanoi was devastated beyond repair and it took 2 years to recover from those shocks, especially with heavy rice shipments from China as well as engineers to repair the LOCs.

Which brings up this point. The concept of strategic bombing is evolving. It is no longer the war winner as originally envisioned by HG Wells over a 100 years ago. It is to deny the enemy the ability to respond in an effective and timely fashion ... which means in a single concept, the Air Land doctrine.

Did the 800+ cruise missiles that hit Baghdad on the first day of the Iraq War end the war? No, it did not but it also blinded the Baghdad, the Hamarabi, and the Medina Divisions from getting any coherant picture until it was too late.

You recall that US had CNN giving live feeds ... and therefore, real time battle intel, at Baghdad Airport but nothing opened up except a company of Iraqi infantry which showed the effectiveness of the bombing in creating fog of war for the Iraqis.

Oh, just to let you know. Neither NATO nor the Soviets made a differentiation between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.

Just because NATO would be lobbing nuclear artillery shells does not mean that ICBMs would not already be flying. In fact, the Parallel History Project states this quite plain. The question is who would shoot first but one nuke in any class goes off, all classes go off.

[shiv]

Shiv,

You are completely wrong about Operations ROLLING THUNDER and LB 1&2. Hanoi was devastated beyond repair and it took 2 years to recover from those shocks, especially with heavy rice shipments from China as well as engineers to repair the LOCs.

Which brings up this point. The concept of strategic bombing is evolving. It is no longer the war winner as originally envisioned by HG Wells over a 100 years ago. It is to deny the enemy the ability to respond in an effective and timely fashion ... which means in a single concept, the Air Land doctrine.

Did the 800+ cruise missiles that hit Baghdad on the first day of the Iraq War end the war? No, it did not but it also blinded the Baghdad, the Hamarabi, and the Medina Divisions from getting any coherant picture until it was too late.

Hitesh this is all hot air - basically an American viewpoint. Mind you it is not untrue. It is true but it is useful only as a lame excuse to pretend that strategic bombing played a great role in a war. Which it did not. It is being made to appear that it did.

All that bombing of Hanoi only resulted in the Americans leaving - tails tucked respectfully between their legs some years later.

And all those starry CNN videos left a live Saddam who was deposed in a later conflict with no solution and the US talking of walking out without such a solution as predicted on here years ago. If strategic bombing is not a war winner but a tactic to deny an enemy something, then my point stands. Strategic bombing is a sham. You have said as much yourself in your own post quoted above.

The word needs to be discarded and not protected by fig leaf excuses like "It is a concept that is evolving". Hey even humans are evolving - they were monkeys some time ago. For the definition to be of any use to humans it should have a definite meaning and any evolution should have direction and be time limited.

The more serious reason I have for being so critical of the words "strategic bombing" and the strategic excuses used to say good things about is that there seems to be a widespread belief in the deadly romanticism of a "fearsome force of fully laden bomb-trucks unleashing their load on the enemy"

Clearly, history shows that such a force of bomb trucks has managed to cause some localized devastation but has almost never won wars. Setting aside resources to maintain a force of bomb trucks to do a job that does not win wars is something only the US does (and is welcome to do). No wonder it is the US that is the most vocal about the effectiveness of bomb trucks despite their failures.

But the US designs, build and maintains its own bomb trucks and whether they win wars or not the US is free to do what they wish to do with their bomb trucks. Serious questions about the real uses and effectiveness of "strategic bombing" by bomb trucks need to be addressed with honesty and not hype and emotion by a nation like India. Indians have a tendency to get carried away and the single first, instantaneous thought that many Indians get is "If its American, its the best". I want to emphasize that "If it's American, it's likely to be the best for America. It may not be the best for India." That is a lesson that I believe needs to be learned with regard to strategic bombing.

[karthik]

Since any strategic bombing done by India is going to be against a terrorist state and more specifically pakistan, i choose none of the above.

Terrorists dont rely on infrastructure, so the more you bomb the infrastructure the more unemployed people take to AK-47, cry and bickering. There is no solution to this scourge on mankind. My option would be nuclear-carpet bombing, which loosely means one nuke per 50 miles and since 90% of the countries population is capable of becoming an excuse mongering terrorist, we should also use chemical weapons to spray the areas in between the blast radius just to be sure. I am really sick and tired of seeing comments on youtube right from Hindi movies to a tamil movie being flooded with paki comments calling us negros. lol.. good riddens i would say.

[RayC]

Difference Between Strategic and Tactical Nukes

Non Strategic Nuclear Weapon

[shiv]

Here is a video of the effect, or non effect of "strategic biombing" on Korea - using bomb trucks and carpet bombing

I am a hard and callous man - yet one particular scene tried to force tears from the back of my eyes - but that is OT for what the video says about the utility of bombing.

[Prem Kumar]

Clearly, history shows that such a force of bomb trucks has managed to cause some localized devastation but has almost never won wars.

Shiv: define "winning a war" please? We need to define what it means to win a war in the Indian context. And determine whether strategic bombing will help us achieve that. As I had mentioned earlier in this thread, lets take the India-Pakistan equation. Our objective in a war would be to destroy Paki's military & infrastructure so that they are not a threat to us for ever in the future. Our goals are not to become an occupying force (at least in my opinion). So, how do you propose to do this without bombing the crap out of them? Agreed that strategic bombing alone will not help us achieve that goal. Its not sufficient but is necessary.

Indians have a tendency to get carried away and the single first, instantaneous thought that many Indians get is "If its American, its the best". I want to emphasize that "If it's American, it's likely to be the best for America. It may not be the best for India." That is a lesson that I believe needs to be learned with regard to strategic bombing.

That's a strawman argument. You cant assume that just because someone is pro-strategic-bombing, he is aping America.

[shiv]

Clearly, history shows that such a force of bomb trucks has managed to cause some localized devastation but has almost never won wars.

Shiv: define "winning a war" please? We need to define what it means to win a war in the Indian context.

That is a most sensible question.

Let me set aside my own personal definition of winning for a moment and ask two questions:

1) If the end point of a war - i.e. the definition of "winning" is not clear, what would make one type of warfighing a "strategic, war winning" method and what would make another type of waging war "a tactical, localized method". How do you say that one is better or superior and requires the expenditure of more resources?

2) Given that the history of "strategic bombing" with heavily loaded bomb trucks as an idea that was used by the losing side in most wars in which it was applied, what justification can be used for the maintenance of fleets of bomb trucks as some great game changing (war winning?) potential?

Indians have a tendency to get carried away and the single first, instantaneous thought that many Indians get is "If its American, its the best". I want to emphasize that "If it's American, it's likely to be the best for America. It may not be the best for India." That is a lesson that I believe needs to be learned with regard to strategic bombing.

That's a strawman argument. You cant assume that just because someone is pro-strategic-bombing, he is aping America.

There is nothing remotely resembling a strawman when you look at the fact that the biggest user of strategic bombing with bomb trucks has been the US and the greatest amount of propaganda material talking about its effectiveness and success has come from the US and most people who argue for the effectiveness of strategic bombing with bomb trucks use American examples and cleverly applied US names in favor of their arguments. All you have to do is re read this thread and re read the names "rolling thunder", "highway of death" to see who is coming up with all this fascinating verbiage. If I dress like a woman and talk like a woman, people will assume that I am a woman. If a person talks and acts American - one is hardly likely to mistake that person for a citizen of Nauru who has independently developed American characteristics.


If the person is not aping America, he is still advocating a despicable tactic that has not actually led to victory in the wars in which it was used and is only adding to the source of the biggest noise being made in favor of this questionable tactic - the US. The choices are stark. Either the person is aping America or he is advocating a useless tactic. If you must classify the type of argument it is a "Have you stopped beating your wife" type of argument. Hobson's choice.

[shiv]

Difference Between Strategic and Tactical Nukes

a strategic mission is:
Directed against one or more of a selected series of enemy targets with the purpose of
progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to
make war. Targets include key manufacturing systems, sources of raw material, critical
material, stockpiles, power systems, transportation systems, communication facilities, and
other such target systems. As opposed to tactical operations, strategic operations are
designed to have a long-range rather than immediate effect on the enemy and its military
forces.

In contrast, the tactical use of nuclear weapons is defined as “the use of nuclear weapons by land,
sea, or air forces against opposing forces, supporting installations or facilities, in support of
operations that contribute to the accomplishment of a military mission of limited scope, or in
support of the military commander’s scheme of maneuver, usually limited to the area of military
operations.”

Definition by Range of Delivery Vehicles
The long-range missiles and heavy bombers deployed on U.S. territory and missiles deployed in
ballistic missile submarines had the range and destructive power to attack and destroy military,
industrial, and leadership targets central to the Soviet Union’s ability to prosecute the war. At the
same time, with their large warheads and relatively limited accuracies (at least during the earlier
years of the Cold War), these weapons were not suited for attacks associated with tactical or
battlefield operations. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons, in contrast, were not suited for strategic
missions because they lacked the range to reach targets inside the Soviet Union (or, for Soviet
weapons, targets inside the United States). But, because they were often small enough to be deployed with troops in the field or at forward bases, the United States and Soviet Union could
have used them to attack targets in the theater of the conflict, or on the battlefield itself, to support
more limited military missions.

Non Strategic Nuclear Weapon

Probably the broadest of these distinctions is strategic versus tactical weapons. In general terms, a strategic weapon is one designed for mass destruction like a nuclear missile. A tactical weapon, on the other hand, typically carries a conventional high explosive warhead.

These two links illustrate the same confusion in definition that besets all discussion on this issue. The definition has varied depending on the end result expected and/or the range and capability of the delivery system and lot of systems fall in between and are unclassifiable as strategic or tactical.

Clearly a lot of these definitions and arguments are "legacy" arguments left over from World War 2 - leading on to the Cold War.

Because there are at least two separate definitions for "strategic bombing" confusion is deliberately fostered because if one speaks about one definition, the argument is shifted by saying "No. Strategic bombing means something else"

But the two main definitions are

1) Effect expected - "delayed but profound effect in strategic bombing"
2) Range and destructive power: "Long range, more destruction in strategic bombing"

I would like to stick to just one of these definitions in this particular post and that is "Expected effect". The expected effect has been summed up above but let me repeat it for clarity:

a strategic mission is:
Directed against one or more of a selected series of enemy targets with the purpose of
progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to
make war. Targets include key manufacturing systems, sources of raw material, critical
material, stockpiles, power systems, transportation systems, communication facilities, and
other such target systems. As opposed to tactical operations, strategic operations are
designed to have a long-range rather than immediate effect on the enemy and its military
forces.

The definition is very laudable. It is couched in such effective language that it would be difficult to argue against. The reason I say this is as follows:

If a country finds itself in a desperate war situation, then the argument for "strategic bombing" as per the definition given above becomes very strong. After all - if a group of military and political leaders were discussing what to do in a desperate war, the above argument cannot be opposed. Who in his right senses would NOT want to do something to achieve "the purpose of progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to make war"? It would be a no brainer. In a war situation anyone could be swayed by such a powerful argument.

That is why it is important to look at this definition in peacetime to see if all those aims have been achieved by anyone who has used those methods. And that is what I have been tryng to point out. Nowhere in the history of "strategic bombing" has the aim of " progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to make war" been achieved.

Strategic bombing has flattened cities, killed millions of civilians and caused enough suffering among an enemy to make the other side sit back in great satisfaction and feel "Aah we are kicking the crap out of those bad people". This is what was done against Germany, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and the Taliban. Lovely language has been invented to ad an element of poetry to this destruction - eg" "rolling thunder"

But in none of these instances was the aim of " progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to make war" achieved.

To me the lessons seem clear. You can bomb a country and cause great suffering. Huge civilian casualties, ravaged cities etc. But the fight merely "goes underground". Like swarms of ants, people spread out into the countryside and keep fighting. Human capacity for fighting seems to increase when you increase the suffering you inflict on a population because the people who are doing the fighting no longer care. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

Two questions stem from this:

1) The wider question of how to defeat such a people
2) The narrower question of whether your "strategic bombing" has achieved its effect.

I am sticking merely to question 2

2) The narrower question of whether your "strategic bombing" has achieved its effect.

So far it appears clear that using conventional bombs, "strategic bombing" has never achieved its desired effect of " progressive destruction and disintegration of the enemy’s warmaking capacity and will to make war"

There is not enough data on nuclear wars to say if that will work any better. But the world is desperately trying to avoid nuclear war while preparing fro nuclear war. And while the world does this there still seems to be a body of thought that believes that conventional strategic bombing works.

My feeling on this is clear:

1) Conventional "strategic bombing" has always failed in its objective
2) It is still retained as an option only by the US
3) It is only a matter of time before someone conducts a nuclear attack on the US in retaliation for the mindless (and non war winning) suffering that he US has inflicted on various nations
4) Nuclear deterrence is bound to fail sooner or later as people who have "built castles in the air" about the effects of strategic bombing come under pressure to prove that if conventional "strategic bombing" is a failure, nuclear bombing might work.

But then we would be discussing a different topic...

[Prem Kumar]

To me the lessons seem clear. You can bomb a country and cause great suffering. Huge civilian casualties, ravaged cities etc. But the fight merely "goes underground". Like swarms of ants, people spread out into the countryside and keep fighting. Human capacity for fighting seems to increase when you increase the suffering you inflict on a population because the people who are doing the fighting no longer care. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

Two questions stem from this:

1) The wider question of how to defeat such a people
2) The narrower question of whether your "strategic bombing" has achieved its effect.

Lets take the case of Iraq. Iraqis can fight guerrilla warfare with IEDs, AK 47 etc. But as a military power, they are finished.

If India did to Pakistan what the U.S did to Iraq, would you call it a victory for India? Lets assume for the sake of argument that India does it in a more humane way by targeting mainly the military & infrastructure (& not kill children by the thousands like the U.S did).

[Rahul M]

I am currently reading fighter: the true story of battle of britain by len deighton. have a go at it if possible.
fits in with what we were discussing here.

[shiv]

If India did to Pakistan what the U.S did to Iraq, would you call it a victory for India? Lets assume for the sake of argument that India does it in a more humane way by targeting mainly the military & infrastructure (& not kill children by the thousands like the U.S did).

In fact India defeated the Pakistani military and it is Pakistani guerillas ("International Gorillae") who are tormenting India now.

The problem is that as long as some fighters are left to fight a war it hardly matters whether a land is a "military power" or not. Like "Highway of death" and "Rolling Thunder", and "Strategic bombing" - "Credible Military Power" is just semantics. Just one viewpoint. Not the whole truth.

[Natt]

IMHO, it will be in the "right place right time".Bombing an active forward airfield,enemy columns, ammo factories, fuel dumps,any or all may comprise strategic if done at a required time. eg. Bombing a fuel dump may be more "strategic" in the initial period of war than after pak surrenders in which it ll be just a satisfying low kick. or bombing an advancing column is more strategic than a receding one, again sounds satisfying

[manjgu]

when Natts backside is bombed !!! by a 1000 pounder

well go to the newbie folder and read.....

[Natt]

when Natts backside is bombed !!! by a 1000 pounder

well go to the newbie folder and read.....

Dont really think that personal offensive comments are taking this anywhere.

[RayC]

IMHO, it will be in the "right place right time".Bombing an active forward airfield,enemy columns, ammo factories, fuel dumps,any or all may comprise strategic if done at a required time. eg. Bombing a fuel dump may be more "strategic" in the initial period of war than after pak surrenders in which it ll be just a satisfying low kick. or bombing an advancing column is more strategic than a receding one, again sounds satisfying

Bombing active airfields, enemy columns would not come under strategic bombing.

Amn factories would be.

I have earlier given what we understand in the military as strategic and tactical. I don't contest the military terminology and their understanding, since they are the ones who plan and execute.

The simple difference is what is military action that would bring a marginal effect from which the enemy can recover and fight back would be tactical and what would bring a long term effect so that before the enemy can recover we are able to or near able to achieving our aim, would be strategic.

[manjgu]

rayC in one of your posts you said

"Strategic Air Interdiction

Air strikes selected strategic targets such as industrial infrastructure, power grids and communication networks would need to be carried out so as to degrade the enemy’s capability to wage war. Comprehensive and timely intelligence would be required to shortlist the potential strategic targets." ..

i was wondering why did u use word timely. I mean unless you meant say for example if a factory is still producing say some material X which is useful for the war effort.

timely seems more relevant for a tactical thingy... ok there is a concentration of enemy at location L1 ... or a ammo train is passing through station X etc...or 3 planes are parked at apron P1 ??

[RayC]

rayC in one of your posts you said

"Strategic Air Interdiction

Air strikes selected strategic targets such as industrial infrastructure, power grids and communication networks would need to be carried out so as to degrade the enemy’s capability to wage war. Comprehensive and timely intelligence would be required to shortlist the potential strategic targets." ..

i was wondering why did u use word timely. I mean unless you meant say for example if a factory is still producing say some material X which is useful for the war effort.

timely seems more relevant for a tactical thingy... ok there is a concentration of enemy at location L1 ... or a ammo train is passing through station X etc...or 3 planes are parked at apron P1 ??

Timely would be what happened in Iran.

They discovered a nuclear processing plant inside a hill which had not been detected.

If there was a war and it was not discovered, then no matter how the disclosed nuclear plants of Iran was bombed, the undisclosed nuclear reprocessing plant would merrily go on its mission and the war effort of the US would be brought to nought.

Now would the nuclear plants be tactical or strategic?

Intelligence, be it strategic or tactical, must be timely. Only thing is the time differential of detection and acting against such targets.

[SaiK]

strategic bombing is capability specific. ask a pakijihadic, he would have a different answer.

mission-capability specific.