Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

in
The Command of the Air
By Giulio Douhet

Giulio Douhet is an advocate of both airpower and the scientific approach to warfare. In The Command of Air he claims that "to assure an adequate national defense, it is necessary -- and sufficient -- to be in a position in case of war to conquer the command of the air."

I find this terminology interesting. Economists are well-versed in necessary and sufficient conditions in the development of theoretical mathematical models.

While I agree with Douhet that it is necessary for nations to have air superiority to provide national defense, I'm not convinced that air superiority is sufficient.

Is command of the air, or air superiority, both necessary and sufficient for national defense? If not, what is required for sufficiency?

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

​

B-2 Bombers Over South Korea →

in

This seems like a game of tit for tat. Kim Jong Un makes threats, and the U.S. responds by sending B-2 bombers to fly over South Korea. Unfortunately for the U.S., this game is highly asymmetrical — the cost of a B-2 flight hour is higher than any other plane in the Air Force inventory.

Is tit for tat the proper strategy for the U.S. to use in response to North Korean provocations? Do military strategists study game theory?

Furlough - Equity vs Efficiency →

in

The Air Force Times is reporting that the Pentagon has reduced the number of furlough days from 22 to 14.​ According to the article, some services may have been able to eliminate furloughs completely:

While some of the military services initially considered eliminating the furloughs altogether, senior leaders argued that since not all the services could do that, it would be better to treat all civilians across the defense department equally.

One of the central topics in economics is the tradeoff between equity and efficiency.

​How do you see this tradeoff affecting the Pentagon? Also, I wonder which service held out against complete elimination.

​

Congressional Budget Office - Approaches for Scaling Back on the Defense Department’s Budget Plans →

in

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has posted a report on March 18 that outlines four options for reducing defense spending:

  1. Preserve Force Structure; Cut Acquisition and Operations
  2. Cut Acquisition and Operations; Phase in Reductions in Force Structure
  3. Achieve Savings Primarily by Reducing Force Structure
  4. Reduce Force Structure Under a Modified Set of Budget Caps

Which option do you agree with and why? Which of these options is most politically expedient? Which will result in the best long-term outcome? Who are the winners and losers for each option?