home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!news.dell.com!swrinde!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
- From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
- Subject: Re: B2s v. carrier task force
- Message-ID: <C1F6tG.KH1@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Summary: Strategic Targets
- Keywords: B2s, Carriers
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: :
- References: <C124LF.77x@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C143p5.38z@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:20:04 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 26
-
-
- From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
-
- In article <C17w89.FrF@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu> writes:
- >
- > From Gary Coffman <gary%ke4zv.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu>
-
- > 4) Strategic conventional bombing of civil and military productive assets.
- > This WWII strategy has been shown by history to be an ineffective use
- > of force and should be discontinued as a tool of warfare. It's strictly
- > a terror weapon against civilians and is of limited effectiveness.
-
- Is this entirely true? My readings about WWII indicate there there were
- one or two classes of targets against whic strategic bombing was effective,
- the first being refineries, fuel depots, oilfields, and such, and the
- second being large railroad yards, vital crossings, and bridges. Aren't
- these still valid strategic targets?
-
- In Iraq, the coalition disabled large parts of the electrical and telephone
- networks, apparently to some benefit. Is this considered strategic or not?
- --
- (This man's opinions are his own.)
- From mole-end Mark Terribile
-
- mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ
-
-