3 ms·
Your definition of "complete dominance" is different from most people's. If you completely dominate your enemy, you prevent them from being able to affect the
by marcus_holmes 6mo ago
Your definition of "complete dominance" is different from most people's.
If you completely dominate your enemy, you prevent them from being able to affect the situation. Iran is maintaining a blockade over a major shipping lane that the USA does not want them to. The USA's inability to prevent this shows that they are not "completely dominating" Iran.
- bpodgursky 6mo agoNo, "air dominance" is a well recognized term, it means you can fly your planes basically anywhere you want, to take out whatever target you want, without risk from AA. They are using it exactly how anyone familiar with warfare terminology would understand it.
- marcus_holmes 6mo agoI think the accepted term is "air supremacy" which is a completely different set of words (and meaning) from "complete dominance"
- tennysont 6mo ago"Air supremacy" would be dominance of the air such that enemy cannot effectively interfere. "Air superiority" is the lesser level (enemy interference is not prohibitive). At least in NATO lingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy I can't tell if this comment chain is a factual disagreement (ability to interference) or a linguistic one (supremacy vs superiority).
- marcus_holmes 6mo agoKinda both, really. Air supremacy (using your useful NATO definition) is not stopping Iran from flying drones and missiles. I don't know if that therefore contradicts the US/Israeli forces having Air Supremacy, or if Air Supremacy itself is an outdated term because it doesn't allow for the kind of drone bombardment we see now. Either way, it's not "complete dominance" which is where we started from ;)