Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Message-ID: <12540@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Dec 89 06:03:57 GMT
References: <12457@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12509@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: munnari!gara.une.oz.au!pmorriso@uunet.UU.NET (Perry Morrison MATH)

In article <12509@cbnews.ATT.COM>, schloss@marlin.nosc.mil (Tom Schlosser) writes:
> 
> 
> From: schloss@marlin.nosc.mil (Tom Schlosser)
> 
> By the way, how come there has been no mention of the bombing of Hanoi?
> Seems like the NVA came to the negotiating table pretty quick after
> their capitol started getting hit.  Maybe that was the problem.  If I
> were president, I think I would have told the North Vietnamese that the
> VC were *their* problem and if they wanted to have two bricks sticking
> together in their cities, they'd best keep the VC on a short leash.

	Hmm. Last I heard, the rolling thunder campaign 0f '68 (?) was
counterproductive in that there really wasn't all that much to hit and
that in terms of penetration of the air defence and subsequent losses, it
really wasn't worth it. i.e. in cost-benefit terms the NVA won the propaganda
war by jumping all over downed B-52s and their economy was so primitive that
bombing it didn't have much effect.
	As I heard, truck numbers and other indicators showed that their
losses were quickly replaced by the Chinese and that the Ho Chi Minh trail
kept quietly ferrying those rockets-in-pieces etc. My memory is hazy and
I would gladly stand corrected. Any comments?