Do you think that the US forces are becoming over dependant of air power. Strikes are called on even the most easy targets if the soldiers are pinned down.
Do you think that the US forces are becoming over dependant of air power. Strikes are called on even the most easy targets if the soldiers are pinned down.
If you can eliminate targets from hundreds of miles away, do it. Less risk, but the desired results are achieved.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I'm all agree with you, overall that Tomawhak.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Do you think that the US forces are becoming over dependant of air power. Strikes are called on even the most easy targets if the soldiers are pinned down.
Do you think that the US forces are becoming over dependant of air power. Strikes are called on even the most easy targets if the soldiers are pinned down.
First of all. It's not really important. If the U.S. has the technology to do so, why risk killing more American soldiers when there is no need to?? If anything it shows that America has the most powerful military on the planet.
Plus, you have to break it down from a military standpoint. Hit em hard with everything you got. If you can take out a target with a smart bomb with 0 U.S. casulties, it needs to be done, rather then engage hostile foces in a firefight, risking American losses.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Do you think that the US forces are becoming over dependant of air power. Strikes are called on even the most easy targets if the soldiers are pinned down.
They may be reliant on air power, but if you have it you might as well use it. We have percision munitions in our arsenal that no one knows about. I don't see a problem with using airstrikes if the men are pinned down, it's harder to shoot down a plane at 20 thousand feet dropping JDAMS than sending the ground troops in to get slaughtered.
