Warfare: Land Power (Pro) vs. Air Power (Con)

I unfortunately got bogged again for time, but below is what I got. Thanks Pro to a good debate!.LAND VS AIR CONCEPTS THAT PRO MUST CONSIDERAll the while Pro and I have debated the modern day merits of Air Power vs Ground Power, where I personally believe that Air Power overtime has since surpassed Ground Power both in technological-strategic capablities and wartime importance. But before we consider who has proven more decisive, I urge Pro to consider the following key concepts.Air Supriority Paradox - Shaping Operation or Decisive Factor?A debate rages on as to whether or not control of the skies leads directly to a battlefield win. I can point to countless examples as to where it does, from Patton praying for good flying weather before the Battle of the Buldge, to the RAF in the Battle of Britian, to the awesome effects of Shock and Awe, and B-52s over the skies of Hanoi in Linebacker I and II. Pro can likely make the debate too - as in WWII Germany and Japan- that the role of air supremacy was for shaping conditions in prepartion for the final land invasion. However, given Operation Allied Force, a war won without any ground forces at all, was the "shaping operation" in this case decisive? Can a shaping operation, as defined by Pro as "the creation and preservation of conditions for the success of the decisive operation," (threat of ground force) also be decisive if it also "lead directly to the accomplishment of a commander's purpose." Something to think about.Air-Land BattleI freely admit, I'am not a strong expert on Air-Land Battle Doctrine. However, I do believe I know enough about the history of Air Land Battle to remake the claim (as I did in Round 1) that the doctrine over the years has provided the intellecual basis for all modern joint air to ground operations that have since come after. From what I have understood, it that is the offical position of the paper that "neither Air or Land are decisive on its own," so I don't believe Pro's assertion that the strategy did not call on the reliance of more air power (I believe its called Air AND Land Battle for that reason). And as Pro has pointed out, the docrine was orginally written as "a solution to the problem of vastly superior numbers of Soviet Bloc ground forces in Europe and Asia." And from what I recollect, the role of air power was to attack Soviet Reserves before they had a chance to brought to the front lines and overwhelm NATO ground forces. If this is true, then the role of Air Power in Air-Land was a decisive op, where the doctrine formally recgonizes the role of Air Power.Air Power in Naval OperationsPro has still yet to refute the decsive role of Air Power in Air-Sea Battle and Naval Operations. With the role of Land forces extremely limited at sea (and therefore half the war effort), Pro has therefore attempted to make the argument that Navy ships in WWII were more decisive than Air, but the offical DoD study on airpower in the Pacific points out that Air Power against Japanese merchant shipping was nearly identical to submarines, yet airpower proving more helpful in destyoing battlecruisers and warships. http://www.anesi.com... Strategic Bombing and Warden's Five Centers of Gravity Warden's theories, regardless if Pro's opinions, still stand as testament to the idea that airpower can win a war all on its own. However, even if Pro is able to ignore Instant Thunder and Allied Force by concluding that diabling a country through centers of gravity is in fact just a therory, I'm wondering if Pro can provide me with a modern day theory or offical doctrine that says Land Power can win on its own. If Pro or a voter is able to produce this, then I will concede the entire debate. If not, then I have at least proven Air Power to be a bit more capable then Land Power. Land vs. Air in Total WarIn my discussion of Stragtic Bombing and WWII, I've proven Air Power to vital in wars that must involve the total destuction of an enemy's industrial output and will in order to win. Pro has not provided an example of Land Power being equally capable with Air Power in accomplishing the requirements needed to decively win this type of war. By large land forces can only engae other land forces, where as strategic bombing has the advantage of engaing a country's industrial output and population centers directly.