Dam breaking is a war crime under the Geneva conventions. How would demonstrating unambigously to rest of the world that its president, government, army and airforce were all war criminals with no respect for human life help the USA win the war in Vietnam? What would the youth of the USA thought about this? They were already solidly against the war, even many in the army, would they be left with any respect for thier government at all? 1968 could have been very different to what it was historically.
Furthermore. The de facto arrangements over the respective levels of involvement with the Soviets and the PRC would be off. If the Soviets and PRC move serious numbers of troops into Vietnam then the USA has lost unless President Johnson wants to raise the stakes still further by taking the battle to the Reds elsewhere. That sort of escallation ends with MAD. Johnson was not that sort of fool.
Neither were the Soviets. Vietnam, much like Afghanastan a decade later, was an opprotunity to cause the enemy great harm at minimal cost. It was a wonderful opprotunity to observe the enemy in action, his command & control, pick up some gear for intel, even interview some prisoners. It wasn't a place that you were going to fight in to end the world. Even basic reaserch into Soviet policies makes this obvious.
The PRC, on the other hand, HATED the Viets in general, DESPISED Ho, and would happily have watched Giap be slow roasted on a spit. They extracted a HUGE tarrif from the Soviets for every supply train they allowed across their territory as a price for letting the Soviets supplky Hanoi
You Geneva Convention comment is also dead wrong.
You are probably referring to this from Article 54 (All quotes are from the 1977 protocol):
2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
Unfortunately for your position Paragraph 2 is over ridden by the following paragraph of Article 54:
3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:
(a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or
(b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement.
And by this section of Article 52:
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage
or perhaps you meant this part of Article 56
Art 56. Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces
1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.
However, as is the case in Article 51, the following paragraph of Article 56 states:
2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:
(a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;
(c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.
This would, of course include power generation and access to roads which allow the rapid movement of forces.
None of this is really relevant to the issue under discussion since the Protocol did't go into effect until January 8, 1978 (six months after the affirming documents were submitted)
Of course, while we are on the subject of the Geneva Convention, perhaps you would care to comment on North Vietnam's application of this part of the Convention (which WAS in effect since 1949)
Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
Art 14. Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour.
and in Article 17
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
or
Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.
Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.
The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent
and
Art 26. The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners.
Further examples could, of course be provided
Lastly, lest you choose to compound your previous error by attempting to apply these articles to those held at Gitmo please remember that:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
are the only combatants who are entitled to the protections of the Convention.