STRATEGIC BOMBING Strategic bombing is considered a necessity for a nation's air force to display air supremacy during World War I and World War II. Strategic bombing is defined as “striking deep into enemy territory to destroy warfare capabilities.” Many theorists have posited different ideas about strategic bombing, including Trenchard, Douhet, and Gorrell. Trenchard's strategic bomb theory was to focus more on attacking German lands and targeting the morale of the enemy nation. Subsequently, Douhet's theory is based on the concept of total war and targeted German infrastructure. Ultimately, Gorrell's theory of using strategic bombs was to focus primarily on one German city at a time. From the First World War, the German bombing of Britain and the Allied bombing of Germany both used strategic bombing in their attacks. During the period 1915–1918, the Germans carried out bombing raids against, but made no progress in destroying few warfighting capabilities, and instead strengthened British morale. To take revenge against the Germans, the Allied powers began bombing raids in 1914 by bombing cities and airfields. Starting from the Second World War, strategic bombing became one of the main objectives. From the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, the Allied forces demonstrated that the destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system, undermining morale and destroying the enemy's aircraft industry, would help achieve air superiority. As a result, lessons such as targeting facilities and electrical power sources, terrorist bombing of civilians were ineffective and did nothing to lower morale, and it was learned that the bombers needed fighter escorts. Although its outcome negligible, the war showed its limits in terms of scope and intensity. in World War I, laid the fundamental foundation... middle of the paper... the subordinate should report to more than one commander. This applies to Air, Space and Cyberspace thanks to the effectiveness and speed that can be achieved. complete a mission. Without unity of command, a confusing and stressful dilemma would be created, affecting the efficiency, time and productivity of a mission. If a subordinate were under many commanders, the time allotted, for example, to discuss which strategy would best be used for a mission would be more of a hindrance than something productive. Additionally, if the goals of both the subordinate and the leader are similar when trying to accomplish a mission, the work environment becomes fast and efficient. While Air, Space, and Cyberspace are somewhat different categories within the U.S. Air Force's mission and work validation, unity of command would still need to be incorporated into each for the Air Force to engage.