It's a shame that a non-violent way to resolve the dispute could not be found. In some ways this is a 'positive' story about signals intelligence - after all it

It's a shame that a non-violent way to resolve the dispute could not be found. In some ways this is a 'positive' story about signals intelligence - after all it meant more North Vietnamese deaths to fewer Americans. However during the Vietnam War and even now the public was very strongly in support of trying to resolve the conflict peacefully; recognizing that any death, be it Vietnamese or American, be it a fighter jet a soldier or a guerrilla, is a tragedy. My hope would be that signals intelligence can be used to 'dissolve' rather than 'resolve' disputes - to learn enough key information to find mutually amicable nonviolent ends to disputes. So on the one hand it feels good as an American to cheer for the destruction of life that is not ours that advances our interests. On the other it feels even better to advance our interest and the interest of others at the same time. As the destructiveness of weaponry continues to increase all conflicts will converge on mutually assured destruction (or mass causualty). That is to say that the future of warfare is, and this applies probably even to the present, that typical weapons are weapons that cause mass destruction. In this world of massively destructive weaponry denying a country access to weapons of mass destruction means denying them the capability to defend themselves as their own sovereignty against the nations that do - which is a form of imperialism that has a very long history. All of this is a long winded way of saying that the way forward, if it isn't to involve hegemonic imperialism, is to find ways to use non-violent capabilities (like signals intelligent espionage, but most importantly diplomacy and interdependent cultures and trade) to make violence the least attractive way to end conflicts of interest.