Seriously, though, I buy the "effects" theory in principle. It works in a certain kind of campaign, where, for example, ECM can suppress enemy air defenses (almost) as well as a HARM can. It works, in the long-term, in counter-insurgency campaigns, where you can gradually deny safe haven and other forms of support to the insurgents through a combination of civil/military operations and good old-fashioned door-kicking.
But when s*** gets real and you need to solve a problem right f***ing now, nothing beats steel on target.
How about we compromise and fire for effect? :)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, I buy the "effects" theory in principle. It works in a certain kind of campaign, where, for example, ECM can suppress enemy air defenses (almost) as well as a HARM can. It works, in the long-term, in counter-insurgency campaigns, where you can gradually deny safe haven and other forms of support to the insurgents through a combination of civil/military operations and good old-fashioned door-kicking.
But when s*** gets real and you need to solve a problem right f***ing now, nothing beats steel on target.
-- Guardian