tifosi77 wrote:You're not understanding the meaning of the term 'force multiplier'. It's simply a way of expressing that missions that once required many assets can now be carried out by a smaller force to the same level of effectiveness. Air power, in and of itself, is not a force multiplier, nor are force multipliers a guarantees of victorious outcomes on the battlefield.
Ahh. I guess I did not understand that. So you're saying that we can do more damage with fewer air assets now than we could in WWII? I can't disagree with that. But what's your point? That we're a more potent military force than we were seventy years ago? Is this from the esteemed military journal Duh?
Forgive me if I missed the context of the discussion. If I did, I'll just bow out of the conversation.
tifosi77 wrote:And yes, I'm saying that a military victory in Vietnam was entirely possible (likely, even) but for the considerations of not angering the Soviets and Chinese. (Same as in Korea) And said victory would have achieved long before anyone got "nuked". But because of the political constraints of not wanting to start World War III over a third-rate rice paddy, the reality that the U.S. faced in Vietnam made any real chance of a military victory next to impossible.
You're saying said victory could have been achieved without starting WWIII? On what do you base that opinion?