Were the Bombing of North and South Vietnam Effective? Why or why not? How do you define “effective” from an American and Vietnamese perspective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Around 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, allowing President Johnson the use of any type of military power without any formal declaration of war. This would later lead to Operation Rolling Thunder, a series of attacks and bombings on Vietnam. The main purpose of the bombings was to demonstrate US air supremacy and, essentially, show off their big guns to scare off the Viet Cong. However, there was a limitation to such bombing, as the United States was limited to what it could actually bomb for “fear of provoking a Soviet/Chinese response” (Trueman). Objectively, Operation Rolling Thunder had two main purposes: to destroy the morale of the North Vietnamese and to prevent the flow of weapons and military personnel from the North to the South (Valentine). The results were exactly the opposite. Regarding US casualties: “Due to operational circumstances, more than 900 US aircraft were lost and 745 crew members were shot down. According to a CIA estimate, the damage inflicted by US bombing in North Vietnam amounted to approximately $370 million in physical destruction and 90,000 casualties, including 72,000 civilians” (Valentine). Even then, Operation Rolling Thunder would only further boost morale in North Vietnam. The North Vietnamese would use the attacks as propaganda to foment more hatred and resentment against the United States. Furthermore, the war would only extend to the south and the Viet Cong were well supplied. Ultimately rendering the bombing of North Vietnam ineffective. In terms of defining effectiveness, one must evaluate the objectives of any type of offensive campaign. From the American perspective, it can be assessed that the attacks were ineffective. This is because the main objectives of their campaign were to destroy the morale of the Viet Cong and essentially demonstrate their military might. This proved ineffective because it only fostered greater Viet Cong and North Vietnamese morale. The Viet Cong used these attacks as a tool to criminalize and portray the United States in an unfavorable light. This would mobilize both Ho Chi Minh's already established followers and peasants who were on the fence about supporting the ARVN or Viet Cong forces. This failure to achieve such a goal could also have been detrimental to the United States as it produced greater resilience of the Viet Cong in winning a war for which they were very committed and passionate. The second objective was to prevent and destroy further advance into the south. This was obviously a failure as the Viet Cong would soon launch a Tet Offensive and Viet Cong forces would have no problem entering the south and infiltrating the factories there. This was highlighted by Heyslip's account, which shows how the Viet Cong had a major influence in changing the outlook of southern farmers. Since the Americans did not achieve their objectives and, in the end, their attacks would only put them in a worse position, these attacks can be assessed as ineffective. Please note: this is just an example. Get a customized document from our expert writers now. Get a custom essay Regarding the Vietnamese perspective of "effectiveness", the operation.