Talk:Proposed bombing of Vietnam's dikes

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Vietnam C‑class Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why doesn't the current article on the US bombing of dikes and dams in Vietnam during the Vietnam War contain the Nixon quotes which advocates bombing and even advocates using nuclear weapons?

Arguably the Nixon quote suggests that there was no formal US policy for bombing the dikes, since it's being discussed in the context of Linebacker II at the very end of the US's participation in the war. 2601:246:C100:A7E4:F158:8CFA:238E:FB4B (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing article structure?[edit]

I feel there are some confusing elements to this article, for one the title is "proposed bombing", however the majority of the article seems to be discussing bombings which happened, which would mean it would go a bit beyond a proposal and feels somewhat misleading? Furthermore, it seems to insist at the start that the bombing plans were rejected and any bombing that occurred was either forced or incidental and blown out of proportion by propaganda. However, the final portion, referring to the later study of the bombings, seems to indicate a systematic bombing that targeted weak points specifically and would be therefore (one would assume) intentional and premeditated? I was only really looking into this for an offhand joke I was making on twitter, but im leaving about as confused as i was when i started reading the article, still very unclear as to what exactly happened. 81.172.75.67 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]