Why countries choose air strikes as a coercive tool

The ruins of a community college after an air strike in Saada, Yemen, last week. Democratic states are not more likely than their autocratic counterparts to employ air-only campaigns, but rich states - and by extension, militarily powerful states - a
The ruins of a community college after an air strike in Saada, Yemen, last week. Democratic states are not more likely than their autocratic counterparts to employ air-only campaigns, but rich states - and by extension, militarily powerful states - are more likely to use air strikes, say the writers. PHOTO: REUTERS
New: Gift this subscriber-only story to your friends and family

Following his April 11 tweet that missiles "will be coming" in Syria, President Donald Trump on Friday night announced US air strikes on multiple sites, including Damascus.

The targeted sites were ones believed to be capable of storing chemical weapons and/or chemical precursors. The strikes were carried out in retaliation for last week's alleged chemical weapons attack by President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Already a subscriber? 

Read the full story and more at $9.90/month

Get exclusive reports and insights with more than 500 subscriber-only articles every month

Unlock these benefits

  • All subscriber-only content on ST app and straitstimes.com

  • Easy access any time via ST app on 1 mobile device

  • E-paper with 2-week archive so you won't miss out on content that matters to you

Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on April 16, 2018, with the headline Why countries choose air strikes as a coercive tool. Subscribe