|
I'm curious where you read that that the main effort of future conflict will to be "causing heavy damage as quickly as possible." I think that most literature and experience since WWII shows the opposite- a move towards risk aversion that stresses surgical strikes and the minimum force necessary to accomplish operational and strategic goals. If there is a body of literature out there that suggests otherwise, I'd be interested to read it for my own education.
There was serious discussion many years back about whether air power could win wars on its own. I think that theory has been completely shot down. While essential to the war effort, air power supports the main effort, which has in the past and continues to be the ground-gaining services (Army and Marine Corps). To paraphrase a favorite author of mine, if you want to win modern wars you have to do it the same way that the Roman legions did- by putting your young men in the mud. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
|