Originally posted by Esoterica
Originally posted by boosai
Disagree
Fighting a country like Vietnam isnt the same as fighting a country like iraq. They dont have obvious cities which poke out of the desert. You cannot use you blitzrieg tactics by storming the jungle with your tanks.
What was your plan just level the entire country from head to tow killing millions of civilians as you go???
Our job was to stop N. Vietnam was taking over S. Vietnam. That was our first problem. The way to 'sto' a country from invading another is to destroy their ability to fight.
So basically, yeah, bombing the cities is how you do it. Desotroying your enemies cities is not really a new concept in warfare. Hell, we did it in World War II. The modern warfare idea of trying to reduce civilian casualties is abscially a new concept, whereas for most os history armies travelled a nation killing anyone they could find, destroyign a nations ability to fight.
Thye way to defeat the NVA was to bomb Hanoi, so if we wanted to win, that's what we had to do. I know its coldhearted, but so is war.
Keep in mind, the NVA had no qualms about killing civilians either.
Yes I agree in the past armys would kill, loot and rape as they went. Different era of warfare. WWII was a different era of warfare to vietnam.
Do you think the US would of got away with leveling cities of millions of people in Vietnam??? Even if they did do you think whiping out an already stuggling 3rd world country was going to stop communism?? Yes the US would of done well if they destroyed everything they saw and hey they would of done better if they just dropped a few nukes but i cant see that happening by todays standards.
Worked well in theory as a chest beating operation.


