Why Couldn't the United States Bomb Its Way to Victory in Vietnam?

Even though the U.S. dropped more bombs in the Vietnam War, than in World War II, it didn’t result in victory. Some military officials believed this was because the U.S. gradually escalated the number of bombs they dropped rather than going all-out until the North Vietnamese surrendered. President Johnson limited bombing because he feared Chinese intervention, didn’t want Soviet involvement, was aware of domestic antiwar sentiment, and wanted to avoid international criticism. President Johnson also wanted to avoid bombing areas with a high civilian count, and focused on destroying North Vietnam’s industry and transportation. To counter this North Vietnamese used lots of manpower to transport goods and got replacement supplies from China and the Soviet Union. They also had less military needs as they had fewer soldiers and waged guerrilla warfare. In the end it seemed that the tactics used against industrialized nations, in World War II, weren’t as effect in Vietnam.

What were some crucial reasons the U.S.A. didn’t drop a nuke on North Vietnam?

Do you think not beginning Operation Rolling Thunder with an all-out massive bombing was a bad idea?

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

1. What is the author arguing?

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower argues that we must keep the Military-Industrial Complex in check. He states that the newly formed and costly armaments industry is necessary in the new day and age, to ward off any attempts to harm the USA, but if that kind of power was to fall under the wrong influence the results could be disastrous and damaging to democracy.

To prevent this he says that we the citizens need to be alert and knowledgeable. We need to make sure military power does not dictate our nation or another and that we can all negotiate democratically without fear, no matter how small they may be militarily.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

President Dwight D. Eisenhower appeals to pathos in the beginning by starting his speech in a way that will appeal to most Americans. He wishes the next President Godspeed, says he prays for good times, talks about his experiences with congress and stating that, even though America was in 3 out of the 4 major wars, it is the strongest, most productive, and most influential nation in the world.

He continues to appeal to pathos throughout the speech by using phrases and words that resonate with the US’s founding principles and what is thought of as morally right. A few examples are when he says “our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations”, “we must never let the weight of this combination endangers our liberties or democratic processes, and “You and I –my fellow citizens—need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace and justice”. By doing this he reinforces the idea that what he is suggesting is the right thing to do; keeping the Military-Industrial Complex in check is the right thing to do.

He appeals to logos through his logical reasons for his arguments. At first he states why having a military establishment vital to keeping the peace. It detours aggressors. Then he goes on to say why it needs to be kept in check. If unchecked it can becomes a tool for tyrannical force by threatening less powerful nations and thereby threatening the democratic process. He also has a logical solution. Have the citizens say alert and knowledgeable so they can step in when there seems to be unwarranted influence.

President Eisenhower uses ethos throughout his speech to appeal to his fellow countrymen. Throughout the speech he says that he values peace, prosperity, and democracy. He says that he wants these values for all people and nations. This shows how much he values those values and it gives people more reason to think that the intent of his warning was good. His logical reasons for his arguments show that he had thought what he is saying and he shows that he cares emotionally for his nation. This gives him a pretty creditable character so many people will probably heed his warning about the Military-Industrial Complex. 

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Not only was President Eisenhower’s speech important because it was his farewell address to American people, but it also probably made people more aware of the dangers that a large Military-Industrial Complex posed toward their democratic process. It also may have been part the reason why so many people are against big military spending and invading other nations.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or Why not?

I find President Eisenhower’s speech convincing because it makes sense. I see it like this: 

If a nation isn’t armed and it runs into some other nation that it doesn’t agree with, it will more likely use diplomatic communication to solve its differences since it takes time to make an army. If a nation had an enormous amount of weapons and it runs into some other nation that it doesn’t agree with it may just use force right away. The people of that nation can object to using force if they stay alert and knowledgeable. If they do not, they can easily be caught up and mislead by propaganda and hype. They can end up in a situation where they themselves, citizens of the nation, don’t even know all the places their own military is running around, let alone for what purpose.