Discussion on strategic bombing and its applications

[Ceausescu]

Strategic bombing is a military strategy used in a total war with the goal of defeating the enemy by destroying its morale or its economic ability to produce and transport materiel to the theatres of military operations, or both. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air which can utilize strategic bombers, long- or medium-range missiles, or nuclear-armed fighter-bomber aircraft to attack targets deemed vital to the enemy's war-making capability. - wikipedia.

We need to have a serious discussion about strategic bombing in Siora, particularly given the absence of nuclear weapons and the ways this affects military doctrine.

Some would say that strategic bombing is obsolete, citing as an example the fact that it has not been employed in recent wars. I say that this is not true, that strategic bombing remains a viable and indeed, central element of a successful military campaign on the modern battlefield.

The argument that strategic bombing is obsolete, comes from some people's lack of understanding of the primary purpose of employing it and subsequently the lack of understanding in regards to the reasons it has not been used recently.

Strategic bombing in the modern sense is meant to take out enemy infrastructure and ability to produce new military equipment, as well as potentially destroy an enemy's economy by crippling trade routes and access to basic utilities such as running water, electricity, gas, etc. Its absence from the modern day RL battlefield is caused by the fact that most wars are either waged between 2nd and 3rd world countries, which do not have this military capability, or between 1st world nations and the latter categories. Since most 2nd and 3rd world nations do not have extensive military production capabilities and almost always rely on imported hardware, strategic bombing becomes unnecessary.

But if a war were to break out between two 1st world nations with extensive military industries, strategic bombing would once again be one of the most important (if not THE most important) elements of any military strategy.

In a modern war, strategic bombing would consist of a mixture of classic use of bombers, as well as cruise and ballistic missile barrages of varying scale. For example, Carpathia's doctrine regarding its use of a large arsenal of missiles, is part of the strategic bombing doctrine that I am using.

I am trying to make the case that strategic bombing should be something that 1st rate powers should take very seriously. What are your opinions on the matter?

[Ayzek]

I'm not sure what spurred this on, but, yes: strategic bombing would be a thing in a non-limited war. The HLE maintains a non-insignificant strategic bomber fleet and a large arsenal of missiles, and I reckon that most of our other states do as well, especially Brigidnans. After all, Brigidna doesn't have the pleasure of a well-armed, Nyland-lead NATO to huddle under. While they do lack a Russia to fear, I don't think our leaders are so idealistic to believe that a major war will again loom over them.

It should be noted that a major war is likely not expected, in-game. While Nerysia may have a large military, the HLE is also allied to Oslanburg and has shown no signs of wanting to engage Oslanburg, Florinthus, or anybody in a war. To date, the HLE has maintained a conciliatory approach with nearly every state both major and minor, including Angiris, Carpathia, and Severyane. The only states the HLE has taken a hard approach with or has sought to warn military (with naval exercises and such) are states that have directly threatened HLE interests, notably freedom of navigation (by claiming more than customary territorial waters, or engaging in piracy, etc.). Since its unity has been reaffirmed by the failure of Azreaen independence and the ultranationalist tide was curbed, it has began to exercise its military power some power as a way to signal that it is very much still relevant and not going away.

[Nentsia]

I'd like to note that the US operations in Vietnam came pretty close to what you described here as Strategic bombing, same goes for Putin's war on Chechnya in 1999 and the US bombardments of Belgrado in Serbia in the 1990's.

And in all cases, they also demonstrate what should in RP be taken into account as the inherent weakness of it: public opinion. Most Western countries nowadays try to refrain from such heavy-handed approaches, because we've all seen how the US lost the war in Vietnam at home, not in Vietnam. The public turned against its own government and mass demonstrations across the West were held against Johnson, calling him baby killer.

On top of that, its close to plain terror bombing, bombing of civilian targets - which makes it a war crime. So those that RP this kind of violence, in my view, should also swallow the political backlash that comes with such extreme acts of violence.

[Flo]

I think this is a very fair point. If you're going to bomb your enemy to smithereens you should face the consequences.

[Ayzek]

Ah...yes. Carpet bombing a much weaker foe in what should be a limited war would probably have big diplomatic and public backlash, if we actually had our states respond appropriately. In the case of big, "world" total war, I'd argue we'd all be too busy bombing each other to rubble to really care too much, or be able to justly condemn someone. After all, in a fight to the death, not dying > what some keyboard warrior safe on the other side of the world thinks.