Four schools of air power:

Dr. Nadeem Mirza

Presented by:
ALIYA RUBAB
 OUTLINE:
 Introduction

 The strategic school

 The military targets school

 The leadership targeting school

 The political signalling school

 Concusions
The strategic

school :
(city-bombing
 prohibition to attack on civilian population

 According to International law:

 Art. 22: Aerial attack to terrorize the public is prohobited:

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian
population, destroying or damaging private property not for military
character, or injuring non-combatants is prohibited.

 Art. 24: Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective
the destruction or injury of an object
must constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.

 Deterrence through city targeting?

• ethically problematic
• mainly utilized strategy to target the moral & material power of adversary
• instances Hiroshima & Nagasaki ( nuclear attack )

 strategic bombing: the debate

• the attacker state aims at the geographical possessions of adversary state
• the abolition of enemy’s already inadequate force
 will terror shorten the war:
• no, because both sides of the coin, billegerents & non-billegerents suffer.

 criticism of strategic bombing

• the strategic bombing myth: strategic bombing of cities is immoral
and unethical
• Completely paralysing the enemy is impossible in small cities
attack
The military targets
school:
(Denial)
 Tactical support or strategic weapon:
 reconnaisance aircraft :act for benefit of the command, artilllery & infantry

 bomber aircraft: attacks targets on the battlefield

• extend the range of action of artillery
• intervene against the installations of enemy

 Fighter aircraft: grant the afore mentioned aircrafts their freedom to act in
battlefield

 Supplemetary offensive: attack on enemy’s communication

• defence from enemy’s aircraft and ground forces
The leadership targeting

school:

(decapitation)
Definition:
• infliction of punishment on chief evil doers (mainly terrorists) by avoiding collateral damage (Osama bin
Laden case)
• This notion existed in the nuclear strategy of 1980s
• sub category of panacea targeting (but has special moral dimension)

• instance: targetting down the tyrant and ideally not the innocent people surrounding him

• Earth penetrating weapons

• bunker busters

• Instant thunder:
a plan for strike against 84 targets in Iraq over 6-9 days

• Desert storm:
4 phases of implementation of instant thunder:
phase 1: strategic air campaign against Iraq
phase 2: air campaign against Iraqi air force in kuwait
phase 3: Neutralization of guard & isolation from battlefield
phase 4: ground attack to eject Iraqi forces from kuwait
Humanitarianism in western states:
western socities can now fight war with minimun human suffering on both sides
(Green political agenda proposed by United Nations)
The political signalling
school:
(game theories)
 Economic game theories
politico-economic escalation of crisis to impose war on other state
(security dilemma
Balance of power
prisoner’s dilemma)

 Conflict management:
game rules to manage disputive paradigms
(soft diplomacy)

 Game signalling:
imposition of several game rules by one state

 counteraction:
the practice of irregular war by other player
investment of full stakes by the first state

 the matter of fact:

commitment and engagment matters in this kind of strategic tragetting
Conclusions
 Contemporary relevance:
4 schools of thought are relevant in contemporary times
except ‘political signalling school’

 separate recognition of each strategic explanation:

• the lines between all the theoretical explanations have been blurred
( complex interdependence, new-normalcy of globalization )
• ‘decapcitation’ and ‘military targetting’ have merged under the aim to strike
communication centres of enemy
.
 Transposition into other forms of strategy:
all forms of air power stategy have been tranformed into nuclear strategy
The interdisciplinary relevance to other domains of
power:

 Land power:
Yam theory by Gangez Khan is the ‘land power’
alternative of amalgamation of:
• Political signalling theory
• Leadership targetting theory
• Military targetting theory

 Military strategy to effectively utilizate the warfare

tactics put forward by khan is the most eminent
form of acquiring land power, same as for aerial
power as described by Beatrice in his book:
“The evolution of strategy”
 Naval Power:
the sea power theory by Thayer Mahan

 Aerial Power:
Guilio Douhet has proposed to directly bomb the cities of adversary on a massive level
(the foundational conception for city-bombing school; 1st school of aerial power)