>Using chemical warfare wouldn't stop the Vietcongs from using gas mask or building tunnels to prevent themselves from inhaling the gas.
You have no idea about chemical warfare if you think gas mask is enough.
Let them dig tunnels and sit there for weeks unable to do anything above without full protective suit.
Let them burden their logistics with suits, decontamination kits, antidotes and mask filters.
Let them have decreased infantry performance because of constant suit wearing.
Let them heal blindness, mustard gas burns and neurological damage.
Also it's a good weapon to ruin any Tet offensive's day.
>No the reasons why assymetrical warfare is so effective is because it constantly uses surprise attacks and unpredictable movements that the opposition has a hard time grasping.
These things are not unique to asymmetrical warfare, they're valued in mobile warfare in general.
>Again you're being stupid and thinking like an American boomer who actually thinks that just simply bombing shit will win wars.
Sometimes simply bombing shit has major influence on the war's outcome, sometimes not. If you believe you can win by NOT bombing, shelling, exploding your enemy you're retarded.
>Where did I ever say that dude's with sticks and forks would be able to win again you're being retarded.
For anything other than sticks and forks you must have either industry or outside source of industrial goods.
>I don't see the Taliban using modern industrialism to fight.
History of modern industrialism starts more than a century ago.
They might not have their own, but they use products of someone else's industrialism. WW2 era weapons are pretty industrial. Regarding infantry equipment most of it can be dated, but have no significant disadvantages compared to modern equipment. I second this >>23735
>Most of the equipment they used was still outdated the usage of advance tech was not the reason why they won.
Still that equipment was not seriously lagging behind its counterparts used by their enemies. We're not in a situation "smooth-bore musket vs rifled musket" here. However would Taliban fall behind by a few centuries in weapon technology, no amount of asymmetricity would help it.
>Do you not understand the consquences of using chems?
You seem to start getting to the point of this. What I want to say is because the politicians have to play their optics, for advanced armies it's not victory by any means while for asymmetric adversary it is. Asymmetric warfare is not superior form of warfare and does not guarantee victory by design.
>some commies who aren't even a threat to the US
Spreading of commie ideology is a threat.