Airpower Theories and their Relevance to Modern Era of Cyber and Space Warfare

AIRPOWER THEORIES
Student’s Name
Course
Date
Airpower Theories
Introduction
The technological developments taking place today have created a scenario where the world’s militaries have to adapt to gain and/or retain superiority. The American Airforce no longer has to contend with terrorism alone since the battlefield is increasingly shifting towards cyber and space. Most of the theories of air power were arguably conceived and developed during the two World Wars and the Cold War, which presented different scenarios from what the current air force faces. Therefore, the main question that needs to be addressed is which of these theories will remain relevant in the modern era of cyber and space warfare. The thesis for this essay is that Boyd, Warden, and Gorrell will remain the most relevant due to the nature of the strategies used when dealing with the enemy, even though their theories will require adjustments. To illustrate this thesis, the essay will dwell on three main points. First, Boyd's theory of conflict and its implications on modern air power is discussed, with the core argument being that this theory is the most important for the modern air force. Second, a case will be made for targeted bombing and offensive operational plan from the ideas of Warde and Gorrell, which are considered support mechanisms for Boyd's theory. Lastly, the moral hurdles of these theories as they apply to modern-day warfare will be explored and presented as the basis for the expansion of the ideas of the three theorists.
Boyd’s Theory of Conflict
Boyd’s conflict theory is based on maneuver warfare, which means temporal and psychological as opposed to spatial and physical. In this case, the main objective of the military is to break the will and spirit of the enemy command through the creation of dangerous and surprising strategic operational situations (Fadok 1995). The four core qualities of a successful operation, as per Boyd’s theory, include variety, initiative, harmony, and rapidity. It is important to acknowledge that both Boyd and Warden advocate strategic paralysis, which entails selectively threatening or attacking the strategic targets that directly support the enemy's war efforts. However, Boyd's theory of conflict hardly insinuates that the primary objective of the military strategy is to engage in a physical war. At this point, Boyd’s ideas resemble those of Warden, who expresses that the military has to get rid of the idea that the central feature of conflict is the clash between military forces (Warden 1995). In other words, Warden does not believe that the ultimate goal of a war is physical combat. On the contrary, if physical interaction can be avoided, then this presents the best course of action. For Boyd, this outcome can be achieved by making sure that the enemy either finds it difficult to attack or encounters scenarios too dangerous that attacks are highly discouraged.
If Boyd’s theory is to remain relevant to the modern era, the next question that needs to be addressed is why this is the case, which means having to explore how the theory applies today. As mentioned earlier, the air force has to contend with a new type of enemy, one that uses sophisticated technology and space as a battlefront. A description of the technical means of warfare described by Douhet and Ferrari (1998) illustrates how air space became a battlefront after the introduction of aeronautics. In this case, the same phenomenon is happening with space technology, which means that space is increasingly becoming a new battlefront. This phenomenon was acknowledged by President Trump in 2018 when he signaled his intention to reform the Department of Defense to integrate space as a war-fighting domain (Dolman 2019). Boyd’s theory of conflict would be used in this domain by often starting with the temporal and psychological war. Winning the space war means that the American Airforce or other department made responsible for this domain creates infrastructure and implements strategies that discourage enemies from contemplating any form of attack. For example, spacecraft that offers the country a first strike capability. Such a scenario would leave all enemies aware that America can devastate them without America facing the possibility of irreversible damage or inability to recover from the war.
A Case for Targeted Bombing and Offensive Operational Plan
Even in cyber and space warfare, it can be argued that attacks are not entirely out of question. If even though Warden believes that militaries should not take this course of action as the ultimate objective, attacks can be used as a means to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, the theoretical ideas of both Warden and Gorrell are expected to remain relevant in the changing context of airpower since they allow attacks to be used as a means to suppress the enemy. Colonel Edgar S. Gorrell developed what is considered the Gorrell Plan, which was based on the idea of bombing military industrial targets (Coady 1996). During World War I, Gorrell criticized the lack of a predetermined program designed to destroy industries that were vital to Germany’s fighting forces. Overall, this can be described as the strategy o...