Defensive wars don’t work quite the same way as offensive ones, and history has extensively shown that air control isn’t the only factor. It certainly can make a difference, but reducing the complexity of war into a simple comparison of two arbitrary measures is ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
I’m a layperson that has read a few articles, but it doesn’t take an expert to understand that you wouldn’t need War Colleges if primary school math was all it takes to win.
The underlying mechanic is always the same: You might be able to deny ground from the air to some extent, but you can’t hold it without boots on the ground. Morale bombing has been tried aplenty and has yet to show convincing effect. And both aircraft and grunts are vulnerable to all kinds of unpleasantness from the ground.
For a defender, the primary objective is making it so costly to sustain the attack that the attacker either can’t afford to or decides it’s not worth it. Asymmetric warfare has shown potential to be quite efficient at that task. The Taliban are one example, the Vietcong another and I really hope we don’t have to find out if Denmark belongs on that list.
I’m 100% confident that Greenland could repel a U.S. invasion based on nothing more than the fact that the U.S.A. has never fought a war in arctic conditions. It’d be like trying to invade Russia in wintertime.
I don’t think anything in war is ever 100% sure. But familiarity with terrain and conditions does go a long way.
I also wonder about the US troops’ morale and conviction in that fight. I’d be wary of making any definitive statements here either way. I know we like to paint the US as fundamentally morally corrupt, but I’m not sure how far following orders and justifying them to themselves will actually go. It’s far easier to tell yourself you’re doing the right thing when abducting a corrupt dictator than when seizing previously allied territory.
Defensive wars don’t work quite the same way as offensive ones, and history has extensively shown that air control isn’t the only factor. It certainly can make a difference, but reducing the complexity of war into a simple comparison of two arbitrary measures is ignorant at best, deceptive at worst.
I’m a layperson that has read a few articles, but it doesn’t take an expert to understand that you wouldn’t need War Colleges if primary school math was all it takes to win.
To put it another way, how many aircraft did the Taliban have?
The underlying mechanic is always the same: You might be able to deny ground from the air to some extent, but you can’t hold it without boots on the ground. Morale bombing has been tried aplenty and has yet to show convincing effect. And both aircraft and grunts are vulnerable to all kinds of unpleasantness from the ground.
For a defender, the primary objective is making it so costly to sustain the attack that the attacker either can’t afford to or decides it’s not worth it. Asymmetric warfare has shown potential to be quite efficient at that task. The Taliban are one example, the Vietcong another and I really hope we don’t have to find out if Denmark belongs on that list.
I’m 100% confident that Greenland could repel a U.S. invasion based on nothing more than the fact that the U.S.A. has never fought a war in arctic conditions. It’d be like trying to invade Russia in wintertime.
I don’t think anything in war is ever 100% sure. But familiarity with terrain and conditions does go a long way.
I also wonder about the US troops’ morale and conviction in that fight. I’d be wary of making any definitive statements here either way. I know we like to paint the US as fundamentally morally corrupt, but I’m not sure how far following orders and justifying them to themselves will actually go. It’s far easier to tell yourself you’re doing the right thing when abducting a corrupt dictator than when seizing previously allied territory.
I hope we never have to find out.