Is bombing effective without ground troops

Is a bombing campaign an effective way to win a conflict?

If your goal is to get bombed too, yes.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Is a bombing campaign an effective way to win a conflict?

Ask the Japanese.

You know we did have troops in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]You know we did have troops in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki? [/B]

They surrendered days after we bombed them.

Making SURE they stayed SURRENDERED.

That and safe guarding locations, giving humanitarian aid and all that other sissy bull shit.

Try reading a history book before it gets revised some time.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Making SURE they stayed SURRENDERED.

That and safe guarding locations, giving humanitarian aid and all that other sissy bull shit.

Try reading a history book before it gets revised some time. [/B]

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Is a bombing campaign an effective way to win a conflict?

Too vague a question to have any meaning. Every conflict, or military action, is rife with context. Context that clarifies, and indeed dictates, the answer to this question.

Bombing can be a retaliatory political message. Or a warning. Or part of a larger operation. Or part of an occupation. Or, backward as this may seem, part of a peacekeeping mission. Or...etc. etc.

So, to reiterate, there is no answer to your question that is satisfactory, because of the limited nature of the question itself.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Making SURE they stayed SURRENDERED.

That and safe guarding locations, giving humanitarian aid and all that other sissy bull shit.

Try reading a history book before it gets revised some time. [/B]

Funny Ush said threads with questions in them were against the rules. Wonder what happened to him and the rules when these were made.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Is a bombing campaign an effective way to win a conflict?

In a conventional scenario, boots on the ground are essential to secure the objectives.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Funny Ush said threads with questions in them were against the rules. Wonder what happened to him and the rules when these were made.

I said no such thing and it is very poor form for you to make such things up.

Is a conventional bombing campaign, like the one being employed against ISIS likely to be effective without a modern ground campaign.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Making SURE they stayed SURRENDERED.

That and safe guarding locations, giving humanitarian aid and all that other sissy bull shit.

Try reading a history book before it gets revised some time. [/B]

The conflict ended because of the bomb. We had troops there to make sure it *stayed* ended.

Originally posted by Surtur
The conflict ended because of the bomb. We had troops there to make sure it *stayed* ended.

I'm more disturbed by his description of humanitarian aid as "sissy bullshit", not cool.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
I'm more disturbed by his description of humanitarian aid as "sissy bullshit", not cool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why are you replying to Surtur? He didn't say that.

Because Surtur was replying to a post that did.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Because Surtur was replying to a post that did.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My apologies, I must have misread the "his" as "your"

No problem.