Originally Posted by
Craig B
I was simply inferring a conclusion from Corsair's previous post. No civilians, no war. It is not I who am saying this, but Corsair 115: no civilians, no economy, no military, no war.
You could win by killing every civilian that supports the war effort. But that is of course is not desirable from a political perspective, nor is it possible to achieve in any practical sense. So instead the goal is to destroy the economic underpinnings which support the war effort.
That takes on one of two paths: direct and indirect. The direct method is to attack those targets which contribute directly to the war effort: armaments factories, oil refineries, chemical manufacturing, railways and other transportation infrastructure, and other critical components. The indirect way is to attack the wider urban area causing generalized dislocation and disruption rather than any damage to specific installations. The former method is best done in daylight, the latter at night. Which is pretty much how the American and British bombing efforts unfolded (with some degree of overlap).
The point is that the targets selected—for either the direct or indirect approach—are civilian operated and/or occupied. The only way civilians could not have been affected by strategic bombing would have been to not do any at all. Which would have limited the air forces to tactical roles only—and the enemy's production would have continued on unhindered. An industrialized nation-state has a prodigious production capacity if left unchecked...