Greatest Strategic Air Missions?

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:45:24 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Various historians have viewed Linebacker II and reached different
conclusions. Eschmann seemed to see the campaign as very effective.

From the military point of view, yes, bombing was effective.

Clodfelter drew more subtle conclusions and leaned toward the classic
"bombing alone doesn't win wars" answer. Michel, doing the most recent
work and being the first with major participation with the NVN in his
research, ascribed losses to bureaucratic infighting, ascribed victory
to both sides by their own interpretation, and agreed with most that
there was a direct linkage between the bombing campaign and the
conclusion of the war.

I don't get that. Is the current opinion that North Vietnamese
conquest of South Vietnam was some other, different war from the one
that was "concluded" by Treaty in Paris?

It seems to me that Linebacker II had virtually no strategic effect as
far as South Vietnamese were concerned, they were wiped out from the
map.


Drax

OK guys, I've been following this and i have to admit that I'm not on all the
missions you have listed in this thread but it seems to me that there is one
that is very aparent by it's absense. Since we're talking about strategic
missions, how about the mission of the Strategic Air Command?
For nearly 50 years their mission was to insure that we maintained a viable
nuclear deterence, maintain 2/3 of the US's nuke strike capability and train
for and conduct strategic bombing missions, both conventional and nuke.
While they were never called upon to conduct the nuke missions, they were
called upon at several times to conduct conventional missions. And since there
was never a nuke exchange while SAC was in operation, I'd venture a guess at
saying they were very succesful at the deterence side of their mission.

just my 2 cents

Jim
SAC Cop
78-88

" PEACE WAS OUR PROFESSION AND WE WON "