Again, this is tactical thinking.
Our problems in Vietnam were strategic.
We spent so much in money & lives fighting individual battles,
but we had no idea how our enemy would respond. They
didn't behave as we thought they would. And the conflict
became wider, involving China & the Soviets.
The upshot was that we lost without even understanding why.
We can design all the special bombs we want.
This is also true of the enemy, who will develop new ones too.
Tools are useful in war, but they are only tools.
One cannot focus upon them as "The Solution" because war is more complex.
Military superiority can be an illusion.
Our advantage against the Japanese was due to a stroke of luck, ie,
carriers not being in Pearl Harbor during the attack. Japan's tools of
war could've been superior had fate dealt them a better hand.
Had Hitler not violated his agreement with the USSR, thereby creating
a war on 2 major fronts, he could've won WW2. What if the war lasted
longer, & we hadn't destroyed his heavy water plant in Norway?
Oh, the tool he might've had.
People look back upon our WW2 victory as having been inevitable.
This is an uninformed & very dangerous attitude.
It breeds hubris, sanctimony, & bad judgment.
Does anyone ever propose a long war?
We were supposed to easily defeat Saddam, & then we'd be hailed by
the Iraqi populace as "heroes". War is a gamble. You toss the dice
when you believe the odds favor you. But then it takes on a meandering
life of its own.
Have you ever designed weapons?
One takes into consideration the threats one knows of.
But one also must consider threats which are unknown.
Let's say that we attack Iran as you suggest.
It would take on the order of a year to put men & materiel into place.
This would be observed by all....Iran...Russia...China...ISIS...& every
other foe we already have, or might be thus newly created.
Suppose Iran allies itself with either Russia or China, who would
see an opportunity for profit &/or expansion of influence.....
What anti-ship & anti-aircraft weapons do you think they
have under development or already secretly deployed?
Our "surgical" strikes could result in heavy losses for both sides.
How do you think Trump & war lusty Ameristanians would respond
to the death of noble Christian Ameristanian boys & girls by
those bearded & brown, ignorant foreign heathens?
You imagine war proceeding according to plan.
I imagine war proceeding as history has demonstrated.
At the risk of sounding like a believer....
Men make plans.
God laughs.
China....the nuclear power with hypersonic (anti-ship) weapons in the works?
How would we blockade their country? Certainly not with billions of dollars
of aircraft carriers which would be doomed to become artificial reefs in the
South China Sea.
Sherman's march was just one part of the Civil War.
China, Russia, & Iran have weaponry far more fell than did Johnny Reb.
But note also that the Civil War was Americastan's deadliest ever, with
more Ameristanians killed than any other, even WW2. Should we
intentionally relive that horror?
There's a political problem here.
When generals advocated doing that to Vietnam, even using nukes
to wipe out the "gooks", leadership deemed that unacceptable.
If you got your way, & we actually started a scorched earth policy,
it would take time. And time is the enemy when a public is watching
pictures of naked children screaming from being napalmed. Their
initial resolve would wither, & it would become a war of half measures.
It would drag on until protests have some President try to save face
by slowly withdrawing (while prolonging the death & destruction)
until he (or she) can claim "Peace with honor".
