This again! There *are* US SOF on the ground on counterterrorism missions in both Yemen (as the White House itself acknowledged earlier this summer; they’re SEALs and Raiders called TF 3) and Somalia (the Pentagon line is “under 100” who’ve stayed since the January drawdown). https://twitter.com/rabrowne75/status/1432413991507316747 …
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @wesleysmorgan
The over-the-horizon line feels to me like more of the cult of airpower. Honestly I keep thinking I should assign ch2 of the Hardest Place (the strike on the Rabbanis compound) to my Global History of Warfare students..."Read this and write an essay on the limits of airpower."
2 vastausta 2 uudelleentwiittausta 21 tykkäystä -
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @RealPotatoFan ja @wesleysmorgan
I'd argue that WWII Japan is the trickiest example - it is clearly the closest that strategic airpower ever got to winning a war. The more one-sided example is actually the air-war in Europe.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
At this point, even the more robust defenses of the air war in Europe circle around arguments like 'well it at least lured the Luftwaffe into the air where it could be destroyed" (which, to be fair, I think there is something to that argument). But 'morale bombing' failed.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @RealPotatoFan ja @wesleysmorgan
My understanding is this remains a thorny debate, our primary evidence for thinking within Japanese high command is inconsistent (and also frequently self-serving) and so historians still argue about the relative importance of the key factors leading to surrender.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
At least some members of the Japanese government were trying to put out peace feelers before the atomic bombings or the USSR (as early as late July). On the flip side, even on August 9th, the cabinet was deadlocked making it hard to say what the crucial determinant was.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
The ability of the USA to drop additional bombs was apparently a major consideration in the final discussions leading up to the surrender, as was the (dim) prospect of actually repelling a US landing on the mainland, in addition to the entry of the USSR.
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @RealPotatoFan ja @wesleysmorgan
You have to remember the tremendous focus in IJN/IJA military though on 'decisive battles' - the hope the military was pinning things on was that an allied landing could be thrown back with such losses as to force a negotiated settlement.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä - Näytä vastaukset
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.