Testing StratBot (AI) On Military History
By Strategy Central Staff – March 21, 2024
AN INTRODUCTION
In this series, Strategy Central examines the Vietnam War air campaign. We first review the US bombing campaign of North Vietnam and analyze its execution and strategic effectiveness. Then, having fed information about the operation into our AI-powered strategy tool, we will see how well StratBot can explain the operation based on that information. This is a useful way for the StratBot user to see how to use the bot and to set expectations for results.
OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER
Operation Rolling Thunder represents a pivotal and controversial chapter in the history of the Vietnam War, reflecting the complexities of U.S. military strategy and the challenges of achieving geopolitical objectives through aerial bombardment. Initiated on February 24, 1965, and concluding in October 1968, this campaign was characterized by its intermittent nature, reflecting shifts in U.S. strategy and the political landscape of the era.
The operation was conceived with dual objectives: to signal U.S. resolve to the North Vietnamese leadership, hoping to deter further aggression in South Vietnam, and to support the morale of the South Vietnamese government and military forces. However, the campaign's execution and its strategic underpinnings were subject to significant constraints and debates.
One of the key limitations of Rolling Thunder was the Johnson administration's cautious approach to selecting targets. Concerns about provoking Soviet or Chinese intervention—both viewed as crucial supporters of North Vietnam—led to restrictive rules of engagement that limited the campaign's potential to strike critical military and infrastructure targets. This cautious approach was driven by the broader geopolitical context of the Cold War, where escalation beyond Vietnam's borders was a paramount concern.[1]
Criticism of the operation's strategic effectiveness came from various quarters, including high-ranking military officials such as General Curtis LeMay. LeMay and others argued for a more decisive and unrestricted bombing campaign aimed directly at military and industrial targets to cripple North Vietnam's capacity to wage war. They believed that a strategy focused on rapid, sharp strikes would have a more immediate impact on both the battlefield and the political leadership in Hanoi, potentially forcing a quicker end to North Vietnamese aggression.
As the campaign progressed without yielding the desired effect on North Vietnam's resolve, the Johnson administration shifted the focus of the bombing towards interdicting the flow of men and supplies from the North. This adjustment aimed to weaken the enemy's military capabilities directly, while still holding out the threat of more extensive destruction as leverage to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table.
President Johnson eventually restricted bombing to the southern part of North Vietnam in March 1968 and subsequently completely halted it in November, marking the de facto end of Operation Rolling Thunder. These moves were part of a broader strategy to initiate peace talks, which began in Paris. However, these discussions initially stalled over procedural issues before serious negotiations got underway in January 1969.
Supply routes for the war included the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia. These supply lines, sourced mainly from the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union, were crucial for transporting material to the South.
The air war, divided into campaigns against the NLF and North Vietnamese Army within South Vietnam and strikes against the North, saw operations launched from air bases within South Vietnam, U.S. Navy carriers, and U.S. Air Force bases in Thailand. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 provided the U.S. a pretext for intensified air strikes against the North, aiming to deter further communist aggression.
President Lyndon B. Johnson was cautious about escalating into a wider conflict with China or the Soviet Union, and limited bombing campaigns to specific targets. The Rolling Thunder campaign, beginning in 1965, represented a sustained effort against North Vietnam, focusing initially on the southern parts of North Vietnam, or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV), and gradually moving northward, despite restrictions aimed at limiting civilian casualties and avoiding direct conflict with Soviet or Chinese forces.
The air defense systems of North Vietnam, with Soviet and Chinese assistance, included anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), MiG fighter jets, and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), posing significant threats to U.S. air operations. To counter these defenses, the U.S. deployed specialized aircraft for protection, electronic countermeasures, and tactics designed to evade and suppress enemy defenses.
Bombing campaigns, such as Rolling Thunder and later Linebacker operations, aimed at crippling North Vietnam's transport infrastructure and supply lines, faced challenges due to weather, political constraints, and the resilience of North Vietnamese strategies. Despite heavy bombardments, the DRV managed to repair and maintain its supply network, showcasing the limitations of air power in securing a decisive victory.[2] Influenced by domestic and international pressures, peace negotiations eventually led to the cessation of bombing campaigns.
Operation Rolling Thunder highlights the intricate balance between military objectives and political considerations in the conduct of war. It underscores the limitations of aerial bombardment as a tool for achieving political aims, particularly in the face of determined resistance and complex international dynamics. The operation's legacy is a reminder of the challenges inherent in translating military power into geopolitical success, a lesson that remains relevant in analyzing contemporary conflicts. The Vietnam War, escalating in the early 1960s, involved significant involvement from North Vietnam, the United States, and other parties. The DRV supported the National Liberation Front (NLF) or Viet Cong in South Vietnam with arms and reinforcements, striving for reunification. In response, the U.S. provided advisory, supply, and combat troop support to the South Vietnamese government to counteract the NLF and North Vietnamese forces. This complex conflict expanded into neighboring countries, utilized extensive bombing campaigns, and was marked by strategic and political intricacies.[3]
The Vietnam War's air campaigns reflected the complexities of modern warfare, where strategic objectives, political considerations, and the adversary's inherent resilience define the limits and possibilities of military power.
OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER - STRATBOT SUMMARY
Using the indicated sources, the staff wrote the first part of this paper. Grammarly was used to improve grammar and writing. All of the sources were uploaded to StratBot, and it was asked to answer the following questions:
“Explain Operation Rolling Thunder. Explain the strategy behind the operation, its duration, and its effectiveness. Who was involved, and what were the geopolitical ramifications? Was it successful and effective?”
StratBot Answer: Operation Rolling Thunder was a bombing campaign conducted by the U.S. Air Force and Navy against North Vietnam from 1965 to 1968. The primary objective of the campaign was to pressure North Vietnam and disrupt its support for the insurgency in South Vietnam. However, the campaign did not achieve its objectives and had limited success in degrading North Vietnamese forces.[4]
The campaign began on March 2, 1965, and lasted until October 31, 1968. It involved extensive aerial bombardment of military, industrial, and infrastructure targets throughout North Vietnam. The U.S. aimed to weaken North Vietnam's ability to sustain the war effort by targeting key facilities such as bridges, power plants, ammunition depots, and transportation networks.
Quantifiable analysis of the campaign reveals that significant damage was inflicted on North Vietnam's infrastructure. Reports indicate that bombing destroyed approximately 77% of ammunition depots, 65% of fuel storage, 59% of power plants, 55% of major bridges, and 39% of railroad shops. However, despite these destructive outcomes, the campaign did not meaningfully degrade North Vietnam's material ability to continue the war in South Vietnam.[5]
The limitations imposed on the campaign, such as avoiding targets that could provoke China and the Soviet Union, restricted its effectiveness. Many important military targets were off-limits, including air defense installations and airfields. The North Vietnamese also dispersed their military assets and utilized alternate routes to mitigate the impact of the bombing.
Furthermore, the North Vietnamese received support from their allies, China and the Soviet Union, which helped sustain their war effort and offset the damage caused by the bombing. The campaign failed to significantly weaken the resolve of the North Vietnamese or persuade them to stop supporting the Viet Cong insurgency.[6]
In conclusion, Operation Rolling Thunder did not achieve its objectives and had limited success in degrading North Vietnamese forces. The restrictions imposed on the campaign, the North Vietnamese's ability to adapt, and the support they received from their allies all contributed to its limited effectiveness. [End of Answer]
HOW DID STRATBOT DO?
To conduct this experiment, StratBot was fed one source of information at a time and then asked to explain Operation Rolling Thunder. The preceding answer was pretty complete but a bit shorter than expected. Various ways to query StratBot at first produced slightly different answers. After several queries, StratBot settled on an answer that did not change much despite multiple additional queries. Perhaps our creation has developed a certain impertinence and had enough of the topic, but we suspect the algorithm is written that way.
The result? StratBot did an adequate job, but it could always be better. This is important for users of StratBot or ChatGPT to understand. AI is limited in some ways and intensely powerful in others. We all come to AI with expectations; some are realistic, and others are not. A small change in the query can make no difference or a major change. Remember that the current AI interface system’s default is to answer as briefly as possible, but the user can push it for more detailed responses if desired. StratBot is excellent at summarizing long passages, just like ChatGPT. The difference between StratBot and ChatGPT is that StratBot is focused on strategy and can provide more nuanced answers that skew in the strategic direction. That's by design and should help the military strategist summarize military history or operations.
Next Up: The SC team will test StratBot's ability to analyze Operation Rolling Thunder. This will move from information synthesis to applied knowledge.
[4] https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-017/h-017-2.html
[5] Ricky James Drake. Rolling Thunder: Mission Effectiveness. Air University Press. 1992. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep13933.7.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A842632d66696586afca5d6f42dba4027&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
コメント