That had really nothing to do with the planes. If the US had wanted to turn Vietnam into radioactive glass, the VC had nothing that could stop them.
The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them, and then you're not actually trying to penetrate their moat, you're trying to limit casualties, whereas they're not.
And then they're not winning by having a functioning moat, they're winning by refusing to surrender to an enemy that has the ability but not the appetite to wipe them out.
> The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them.
Nice history rewriting from the amateur historian ("glass them").
The US dropped more bomb tonnage on North Vietnam than in all of WW2. They dropped more napalm than all of WW2. They even used Agent Orange to defoliate, en masse.
The only thing they didn't use was nukes. And that's because both China and the Soviets had them, not because the goodness of American hearts.
The men on the $2 pedal bikes won. In their moats and tunnels.
I'm not saying that's what they should have done. But if the consequences of losing in Vietnam were the same as the consequences of losing in WW2, the US strategy would have been different, and do you actually think they still would have lost?
> The US dropped more bomb tonnage on North Vietnam than in all of WW2. They dropped more napalm than all of WW2.
Bombings were responsible for ~2% of the casualties in WW2 and a significant percentage of those were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The B-52 didn't even exist during WW2.
> And that's because both China and the Soviets had them, not because the goodness of American hearts.
You're now arguing that the reason was MAD rather than moats.
Moreover, the premise of a moat is to protect some "castle", i.e. a fortification of some kind. To the extent that the VC had anything like that, it was successfully bombed.
Guerilla warfare is an entirely different defense strategy, basically rooted in the premise that your fortifications are going to be destroyed so what you're going to do is not have any.
That had really nothing to do with the planes. If the US had wanted to turn Vietnam into radioactive glass, the VC had nothing that could stop them.
The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them, and then you're not actually trying to penetrate their moat, you're trying to limit casualties, whereas they're not.
And then they're not winning by having a functioning moat, they're winning by refusing to surrender to an enemy that has the ability but not the appetite to wipe them out.
> The problem there is that the US was trying to convert them rather than annihilate them.
Nice history rewriting from the amateur historian ("glass them").
The US dropped more bomb tonnage on North Vietnam than in all of WW2. They dropped more napalm than all of WW2. They even used Agent Orange to defoliate, en masse.
The only thing they didn't use was nukes. And that's because both China and the Soviets had them, not because the goodness of American hearts.
The men on the $2 pedal bikes won. In their moats and tunnels.
> "glass them"
I'm not saying that's what they should have done. But if the consequences of losing in Vietnam were the same as the consequences of losing in WW2, the US strategy would have been different, and do you actually think they still would have lost?
> The US dropped more bomb tonnage on North Vietnam than in all of WW2. They dropped more napalm than all of WW2.
Bombings were responsible for ~2% of the casualties in WW2 and a significant percentage of those were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The B-52 didn't even exist during WW2.
> And that's because both China and the Soviets had them, not because the goodness of American hearts.
You're now arguing that the reason was MAD rather than moats.
Moreover, the premise of a moat is to protect some "castle", i.e. a fortification of some kind. To the extent that the VC had anything like that, it was successfully bombed.
Guerilla warfare is an entirely different defense strategy, basically rooted in the premise that your fortifications are going to be destroyed so what you're going to do is not have any.