How Does Air Force Affect The Nature Of War?

“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The concept of war as a static and unchanging occurrence is an outdated and dangerous miscalculation. More accurately, war is a fluidic, evolving and shifting phenomenon constantly reinventing itself, rendering stagnant, inflexible principles potentially disastrous. Consequently, as students of war and future players in this transforming theatre, the study of eras of significant development is an extremely relevant pursuit. Recognizing the need for adaptation and the creation of doctrine is now a prerequisite for any effective modern commander. War is unpredictable in nature and particularly so in current theatres of operation, in which change is rapid

Few inventions have shaped war as much as the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb enabled massive indiscriminate destruction on a scale the world had never seen. The offensive capabilities of the atomic bomb were terrifying and many believed a nuclear war could destroy the world. Bernard Brodie, Albert Wohlstetter, Thomas Schelling, and André Beaufre describe the state of war the atomic bomb introduced in the Nuclear Age. Their writings show that atomic bombs changed warfare by changing the focus of arms development to avoid conflict and threats against civilians were now used to force surrender.

Since the beginning of aviation, aircraft have been used for other intentions besides carrying passengers and cargo. They have been used as weapons of war dating all the way back to the first world war, and the use of aircraft has enlightened the advancement of the aviation. “Throughout the history of aviation, the greatest progress in flight has been made during time when either war or the threat of war was present” (Millspaugh, et al., 2008, p. 33). However, the war we face today has been triggered by the deliberate use of aircraft to cause death, destruction, and mayhem.

Allied strategic bombing during the Second World War did not achieve its intended objective, which was to break German morale and bring about the swift defeat of Germany. However it did have a very significant impact and assisted the allied victory. There are diplomatic and economic reasons why the bombing campaign was significant. It also had a large impact on morale both in Germany and in Britain and effected outcomes on the fighting fronts in Second World War by impairing the German forces. The significance of the strategic bombing campaign has to be measured in terms of its effect as compared with the effect of other actions taken by the allies. This essay will argue that the real significance of allied strategic bombing was in capping

In the books of history, World War II was the most widespread and by far the deadliest war ever recorded in history. According to “article by History.com” (2016), “the Second World War involved more than 30 countries in the world and was responsible for more than 50 million both military and civilian deaths”. (Para 1). The Second World War commenced by the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany lead by the famous Adolf Hitler and lasted for around six noxious years before both Germany and Japan were conquered in 1945. The battle in the World War II adopted various techniques during the war including the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. The major component however during the war was the air warfare that presented the major threats during the

The introduction of aircraft had begun a new era in warfare. No longer were military powers limited to the boundaries of vehicles that were restricted to land. The evolution of aircraft technology helped pioneer a new type of combat strategy that played a significant role in determining the outcome of a battle. Air combat also influenced the economies of the participating countries. The whole cycle of airplanes from the assembly line to the pilot became factors that added up to become an advantage or disadvantage.

In World War Two (WWII) air combat was a commonly used war tactic. Many countries in WWII had an Air Force. The Air Forces usually consisted of bombers and fighters. The United States who entered the war after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor had a particularly large Air Force. The U.S. Air Force Had several groups but a major Air Force group was the Eighth Air Force. The Eighth Air Force’s role in WWII was essential to the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi rule by bombardment of strategic targets in Europe. Wich was done successfully after we dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.

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.

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

This essay examines whether or not airpower, along with its technological advances, improved or diminished the United States (US) ability to wage war according to the tenets of jus in bello. The goal of war should not be total annihilation of the enemy without regard to life and property. Although there are many perspectives on this topic, most philosophers believe technologically advanced air power has gone outside the realm of jus in bello. However, based on careful analysis, research shows leaders are required to follow the laws of war and exercise sound judgment. This argument is supported by examining just war theory and the key tenet jus in bello as it applies to technological advances in airpower.

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

By nature the war is considered to be political, fundamentally interactive and most importantly something exceptionally violent. If any of these elements are absent, it might be constituted to something else instead of a war because it has got a certain nature to be called as a war and must meet a certain criteria. While on the other hand, the character of war is something that keeps on changing as per the manifestations and changing phenomena of the real world. The character of war is political that keeps on taking place among various societies. Politics plays a great role and character in shaping the society. While the conduct of war is highly affected by cultural, political, ethical, legal, technological as well as social factors along with the factors associated with the organization of military. However, the place and time keeps on playing great role in deciding the character of wars .