I read that stealth bombers were extremely successful in the Persian Gulf War (no bombers lost and an extremely high hit rate on targets). Because of this success, the US easily defeated the Iraqi army despite the fact that Baghdad was one of the most heavily fortified cities on earth (I read that it had more/better anti-air defense than Moscow). However, prior to their invention, in the last two major US conflicts (Vietnam and Korea), the US clearly had less success. Is this because Korea and Vietnam had air defense capabilities that were able to offset current US air power at the time (the weapons provided by soviets and China)? Was stealth technology therefore a major leap forward relative to the Soviets?
However, prior to their invention, in the last two major US conflicts (Vietnam and Korea), the US clearly had less success.
I would disagree with this statement. By the end of the Korean War, the US had destroyed virtually every target of value in North Korea using B-29s. Equating air power with an outright victory is a poor way to look at things. The US and UN had specific goals during the Korean War and outright victory over the Communists and reunification was not one of them.
As far as Korean air defense capabilities during the Korean War, they were virtually nonexistent. The biggest threat came from Soviet and Chinese MiGs, but the US F-86 was able to handle them. Although the MiG had a higher service ceiling and a higher top speed, the F-86 pilots learned how to use their planes to their advantage. The F-86 had a better targeting system, was more stable, and could dive faster than a MiG, and it handled better at lower the lower altitudes. While the Soviets and Chinese shot down numerous F-86's, the US forces were able to inflict many more losses on the MiGs. Combined with flying B-29s at night, when the MiGs could not operate effectively, the US/UN forces had virtually complete control of the airspace over North Korea.