America 's War With Unlimited Resources Essay

“Never before had so much brain-power been focused on a single problem.”(Laurence qtd. in “Eyewitness”). Many inventions can be said to have changed the world, and the way it worked. Only a core few of these many inventions can be said to change air warfare, and few of those are as game-changing as the B-29 Superfortress by Boeing. The B-29 was the plane that dropped the atomic bombs in World War Two (“bomber”). The plane by Boeing was used most in World War Two as a strategic long-range bomber. This invention revolutionized the concept of war, and war is a factor in all life on planet earth. The B-29 bomber changed warfare by sparking the innovation of aircraft technology, saving lives, and allowing more power to be carried by the means

The American “way of war” is primarily based on the American interpretation of the national fundamentals and values to include capitalism and basic freedoms surrounding financial enterprising as applied in the democratic system. Along with these ideals concerning free marketing and democracy, the American “way of war” seeks to reinforce alliances with nations that uphold similar concepts and values through international trade and commerce. In doing so, the United States intrinsically denounces political ideologies that are contradictory, such as communism.

Over 100 years ago, when humanity looked for new places to conquer, two men looked to the skies. Wilbur and Orville Wright built the first working motor airplane, and after that day, the world took a huge interest in aviation, causing many leading pioneers and innovators in the aerospace field to emerge, revolutionizing the way we look at the skies.

King Philip’s War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country’s history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

In light of the most recent election results I find myself worrying about the countless social and economic injustices that will perpetuate to occur in our country. I dwell on our history, of how our social welfare system created and continues to reinforce discrimination, privilege and oppression. How did we end up like this and where is that “American dream” promised to those within our boarders? In our country, “an obsession with free-market logic and culture has led to the political class to craft policies that promote private interests over the public good” explains Marc Lamont Hill, a political contributor for CNN and author to the thought provoking book, Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on the Vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond. In ‘Nobody,’ published earlier this year, Hill sets the scene of social injustice through his analysis of the vulnerable, providing a snapshot of social upheaval. Two other literary works, $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America by Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer, and Bryan Stevenson’s book, Just Mercy: A story of justice and redemption, additionally seek to describe how social injustices and economic issues manifest in America. Together, all three texts use shocking personal accounts from people, community members and onlookers to craft together the narrative of America’s devastating reality. ‘Nobody’, ‘Just Mercy’, and ‘$2.00 a Day’ exposes our society’s shortcomings through their themes of poverty,

Before and during the Second World War people were fascinated with flight, the speed and the idea of flying high in the sky has kept people interested. Bombers and fighters alike both change dramatically in the twenty years after the Great War. From cloth wings to metal wings planes became bigger, faster, agile, and can hold a lot more fire power. The air war has changes significantly since the First World War. During the First World War bombers played a big role in the air war and after it left many questions whether it is the way to win wars. There has been speculation that future wars would be won by bombers and it can crush and the enemies at home and also the soldiers. Both book, Wartime by Fusslle and Why the Allies Won by Overy explain in depth what was the actual outcome of bombers and their roles before and after the war.

Considered an aviation pioneer by many, Billy Mitchell (1879-1936) recognized the potential of air power as an integral part of national defense. His strong beliefs led to a court-martial for insubordination in the 1920s. The key role played by air defense during the Second World War II vindicated him.

The brothers Wilbur and Orville Wright, possibly the two most renowned representatives of American aeronautics, were the first to experience controlled, continuous flight of a powered airplane in history. Despite being autodidactic in the area of engineering, the duo proved to be extraordinarily successful, testing and refining their strategies to overcome successive challenges that arose with the building of a plane (Crouch 226). The two were so far ahead in the race for flight that they even anticipated and found solutions to problems that more learned scientists could not have even begun to predict. Successful, man-controlled, powered flight was a fundamental turning point in history; it transformed the methods of how the United States

Aircrafts in World War 2 was arguably the most important weapons delivery system. This advancements in aviation gasoline were able to provide 15 percent higher speed, a 1500 mile longer range for bombers, and an increased altitude of 10,000 feet. Aviation gasoline was very important at that time as it was able to provide airplanes with the wanted capabilities at that time, and hydrogenation increased the octane readings of gasoline, which also increases the engine’s power. One important use of aircraft was during the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, which destroyed most of the U.S Pacific fleet. It is significant that many of the closing events of World War 2 was also dependent on aircraft.

Throughout history there has been competition for resources and domination. This competition has led to conflicts that have caused destruction, social disruptions and death. World War I was no exception to this competition. World War I was known as the war to end all wars and was caused by a combination of factors. Some causes of World War I was nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and the main cause which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Gavrilo Princip of Serbia. While the United States attempted to remain neutral and stay out of the war, Germany choose actions that gave the U.S. no choice but to enter and help their Allies defeat the other powers.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

The air war in North Africa highlighted the gap in US air doctrine’s emphasis on exclusive strategic bombing. Tactical airpower

The concept of airpower and its effectiveness against the enemy’s fielded military forces is well documented in a number of literatures. In the history of American military, airpower has been considered not only as the sharpest military sword but also a highly versatile set of tools used to effectively promote national strategy. Airpower’s effectiveness in support of national strategy has significantly improved since 1945. The study of airpower exposed certain consistencies which have affected its effectiveness. The theory and practice of airpower filled the past century with frequently persuasive victories coupled with a historical documentation packed with arguable failures. It is important to note that the effectiveness of airpower, as a military operational strategy, has triggered a debate among proponents and non-proponents. Some airpower theorists have debated its effectiveness. Throughout history, the many claims about airpower’s decisiveness to independently win wars or conflicts have hindered the notional and real application of this instrument of power. This essay highlights factors which consider the scope of the strengths and limitations of airpower that has been and will continue to be effective throughout the 21st century.

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US