Display:
I wasn't opening a general discussion on the justification of wars - only this (type of) attack. A dam is a public infrastrucutre serving not only the industry, and the destruction it wroughts extends beyond the immediate destruction effort - there is a difference between attacking a weapons factory and attacking a power station or water purification plant, too, and I'd say a dam attack is on yet another higher step.

I wasn't discussing air war in general, either, though the shift you mention would be worth a more explicit discussion. (As ATinNM, I suspect that shift has reasons in reverse justificating current military strategies, also see Rumsfeld's short-time resurrection of the myth of the Werewolf insurgency.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 02:44:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Again it doesn't have much to do with current politics. The dynamics of academia, yes - if you're working in a well researched field you need to write something new. The old argument was based on the fact that Germany's arms production went up in spite of the air campaign. The new one argues that it did so a lot less than it would have otherwise and that it diverted production into air defense and fighter aircraft.

As far as Iran goes, it would be trivial for the US to cause a collapse of its economy. It would also be a pointless self inflicted negative for US interests but that wouldn't be much consolation for Iran.  There's a difference between a conflict between high tech economic superpowers with the resources of a continent at it's disposal and a medium sized middle income country.

by MarekNYC on Fri May 16th, 2008 at 03:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Sep 2

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Sep 2