Aerospace Power: The Case for Indivisible Application

Air Force leaders of today and tomorrow have a clear and overriding mandate to ensure that all U.S. air power resources are developed in harmony to meet a growing global threat of multifarious dimensions. I have confidence that they can do so, but it will require more than just wisdom in professional military planning, government, developing, producing and operating. In our system of government, in which decisions evolve from bureaucratic consensus, the "indivisibility of telling" is as important as the "indivisibility of doing." And there must be the will to do both. Bruce K. Holloway General, United States Air Force (Retired) A persistent legacy of the World War II era of strategic bombardment and the postwar requirement for nuclear deterrence is the association of long-range combat aircraft (bombers) with the strategic nuclear mission and, conversely, the assumption that the far more likely nonnuclear conflicts will be handled by the "tactical" elements of our aerospace forces, our fighters. This study offers a serious alternative to this "aerospace folklore." The proposals put forth here are based on the indivisible air power concept which suggests that strategic and tactical classifications are purely transitory and depend on how a weapon is used, not on its size, speed, range, payload, employment medium (space or air), or service or command affiliation. The doctrinal framework present in this study, if applied to all our aerospace systems, should result in a far more flexible aerospace force structure, one that gets the most from our increasingly expensive and limited assets. More important, it should improve our ability to rapidly respond to global crisis and conflict and to apply the appropriate level of force at the right place and the right time. Donald D. Stevens Colonel, United States Air Force Commander, Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education