India (which makes war on China), Iraq, Syria, Finland, are better supplied than Vietnam! An article appearing in the NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR alters nothing of our findings; the fire power of North Vietnam would not stop the aircraft of the 7th Fleet, but it is quite capable of meeting two or three flotillas at a time". That is to say categorically: the firepower is sufficient to defend Hanoi (and Haiphong). In fact this implies a dramatic choice: either to defend Hanoi and Haiphong, or to defend the other parts of the country (for, whilst the "two or three flotillas" attack Hanoi, the rest of the 7th Fleet plus the Tactical Air Command, for example attack Vinh Linh and other places).
How have the Vietnamese been able to inflict 50% losses on American aviation? "At a stupefying rate the SAM rockets rise up, often in clusters. The standard of the slogan "a blow, an aircraft" surely isn't respected. What does it matter, the rockets don't run out.
This corroborates what we would say: the necessity of a cloud of SAM 2 for each direct hit. The battle of Hanoi is only further proof of it.
In Hanoi the anti-aircraft armament has reached a fearful density; it is only here, by making a veritable "wall of fire" that the Vietnamese succeed in repelling the American air-power. But you only see such density at Hanoi and Haiphong: the other parts of the country are vulnerable.
The fact should be emphasised that it isn't a question of adding to American losses solely by increasing the density of anti-aircraft fire. (The considerable increase in Soviet aid recently will not practically [illegible] the lot of the country towns and villages). At the same time the quantity of the equipment must be increased. American losses would then exceed 90 or 95%, not only over Hanoi, but over all the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
NOTHING, TECHNICALLY OR MILITARILY, EXPLAINS SUCH A SITUATION OF SHORTAGE.
What are we to think of the Soviet technicians? They have solved successfully the problem of destroying rockets in flight (Khrushchov). They have shown on T.V. the interception of a medium range warhead; they have shown us an A.B.M.(1) (anti ballistic missile), capable of 95% interception of the nuclear warhead of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, falling from 200 km at a speed of 28,000 km per hour, and yet they do not know how to knock down a plane flying at 2,000 km per hour?
How can we consider that 1 to 2% losses must be the maximum possible, when the Strategic Air Command itself forecast that an attack "By the saturation" against the U.S.S.R. (that is to say all the U.S. Air Force) would only let through 2 to 3% of the aircraft?
Hawk, mounted in a protected vehicle, self-propellant and parachutable. These vehicles pass through Red Square every year. Moreover, there exist rockets capable of being carried by an infantryman, derived from the Soviet Atoll and the U.S. Sidewinder (redeye engine). The method of use is simple: POINT IT TOWARDS THE NOISE, PRESS THE TRIGGER — THAT'S ALL! With 90% chance, an aircraft flying at twice the speed of sound is knocked down.
In only taking account of what the Russians have revealed to the public of their armaments (and without prejudicing any changes for the better) we could argue the following:
Protected by the MIG 23 and the Yakovlev capable of resisting U.S. fighters, 50 AN-16 cargo aircraft leave Vladivostok for Vietnam, refuelling in mid-air over the Pacific (to avoid China and not to put them in a position to be attacked by the U.S.A.) by means of some II-28. Always protected by fighters (which also refuel in mid-air) they land at several points on Vietnamese territory, on non-prepared runways 500 m long, unloading their long-range rockets, their low-altitude anti-aircraft rockets, their radar, all in protected vehicles. The whole thing could be installed in less than three hours.
The first U.S. raid, taking off from the Forrestal, loses "at least 90% of its aircraft...Utopia? No. The manoeuvres of the Warsaw Pact powers have shown that it is possible to seal off the frontiers of North Vietnam...
BUT IT WOULD IMPLY A DIFFERENT POLICY
Only an energetic counter-escalation would stop the American aggression against North Vietnam. Now this counter-escalation is contrary to the policy of PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE which from the affair of the Cuban rockets (the Cuban missile crisis) means abandoning a socialist nation to more and more hard blows by American imperialism (North Vietnam), passing to the 'denunciation' of the latin American guerillas, and the refusal to assure China of unconditional support in the case of American aggression.
When the bombs which fall in clusters on Hanoi are aimed to put a stop to all human activity there, some people dare then to affirm that the U.S.S.R., faced with the danger of nuclear war from U.S. imperialism, has a responsible attitude and that it "has saved world peace."
We would respond: "What peace?"
(1) Certain Soviet generals think that the Anti-ballistic-missile makes no difference to the situation. On the scale of a nuclear war, 5% of the American intercontinental ballistic war load (there are 1,200 of them) would amount to 60 bombs of more than 3 megatons each. It has been calculated that this would mean 100 million immediate deaths. Moreover, certain intercontinental [illegible] are between 15 and 30 megatons each.