ABSTRACT
Conflict termination is viewed as a process in which political and military power are used to reach an acceptable outcome. In the absence of adequate contrary evidence, one can arrive at tentative judgments about the role and efficacy of airpower employment in conflict termination. In addition to viewing conflict at different levels, one needs to consider the varied employment roles of airpower at each level in order to arrive at tentative judgments about airpower’s contribution to conflict resolution. In limited war, airpower appears to have contributed to conflict termination but in a more indirect way. In Korea and Vietnam, US airpower largely destroyed the means but not the will to fight. Ironically, the change in will occurred where no aerial attacks were made, in Peking and Moscow. Significant improvements in the force structure will contribute to conflict termination only if it is preceded by adequate conceptual thought about force employment.
