This paper will present a comparative review of two books both intended to describe successful methods for employing air power. Despite the similar goal, the books are designed for different audiences. Pape's, Bombing to Win, while informative to policymakers, is intended as a first step for social scientists to begin the study of the use of military coercion. Warden's, on the other hand, is aimed primarily at those who will be in a position to plan and conduct an air campaign. Both books rely heavily on information from secondary sources, but their approach to the issues varies greatly. Pape presents his theory of coercion and examines case studies from the use of air power in the 20th century to support that theory. Warden uses historical information as well, but his approach is to describe the roles of air power and provide guidelines on how to use them. Despite the two different audiences and methods, if one looks closely, both books come to some surprisingly similar conclusions. Conversely, they have some starkly contrasting views as well. Warden is clearly a proponent of air power and sees its utility in many different uses. Conversely, Pape sees the only valid use of air power as being attacks on fielded forces and vehemently defends that position. Now, turning to the books individually to examine their arguments in more detail.
展开▼
