• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If the US continued fighting in Vietnam for 2 more years

RoloMather

RoloMather

Golden Member
Would it have won the war?

---

Thanks for trolling. I unlocked this thread because it became a decent discussion despite your trolling.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator
 
No. At the end there were as many VietNamese who wanted the US out as there were when the war started.
In fact, we were losing "hearts and minds" faster than we were winning them.
 
Our gov't wouldn't let the military win. Winning militarily was never the problem. The military having permission to do what it took to win, was.
 
Originally posted by: techs
No. At the end there were as many VietNamese who wanted the US out as there were when the war started.
In fact, we were losing "hearts and minds" faster than we were winning them.
Click to expand...

I think the Phoenix Program would beg to differ.
 
We could have won the war in the first few years if it would have even taken that long, but you can't win a war with political constraints and people watching every evening on the news. The Viet Nam War was never conducted like a war so we ended up with egg on our face.
 
The aircraft carrier that went through a time vortex would easily have allowed us to win, with its super-advanced jet fighters and nuclear-tipped tomahawk missiles.

At least until Kim Jong 1's alien allies came through the stargate to enslave all puny humans.

Or, treating a vague and absurdly hypothetical question seriously:
Sure, if we were willing to use nukes to reduce the population to an easily-managed size. Neutron bombs would let us do this while allowing access to resources without a long wait for the radiation level to subside.
 
Originally posted by: RoloMather
How is this subject either Politics or News?
Click to expand...

To quote von Clausewittz, 'war is politics by other means'.

No, the US would not have won in Vietnam had we stuck around another two years or another twenty. 'Unchaining' the military wouldn't have helped either. Basically we were attempting to fight a popular movement by force of arms. That never works.
 
Originally posted by: RoloMather
Would it have won the war?
Click to expand...

No the commies would have just waited us out in the bushes for another 2 years.

When it comes to conventional warfare, the US is #1 in the world. When it comes to guerilla warfare, we will have a rough time.
 
No it was all fucked up from the get go . We under estimated the VC . They were very strong as a fighting force and would fight to the last man . They held off the Frence , then dealt with the US . Our Intel was wrong from the start and stayed that way right up to the end . The whole deal was FUBR from the start . No body on the US end took the VC seriously and thats what fucked us . We carpet bombed the VC with B52's with not much effect . They always had intel on the US , not so effective on the US side , no matter what you read/learn . The Vietnam people are a fierce proud people , and they got fucked over one to many times . We(US)paid for that .
 
Originally posted by: squirrel dog
No it was all fucked up from the get go . We under estimated the VC . They were very strong as a fighting force and would fight to the last man . They held off the Frence , then dealt with the US . Our Intel was wrong from the start and stayed that way right up to the end . The whole deal was FUBR from the start . No body on the US end took the VC seriously and thats what fucked us . We carpet bombed the VC with B52's with not much effect . They always had intel on the US , not so effective on the US side , no matter what you read/learn . The Vietnam people are a fierce proud people , and they got fucked over one to many times . We(US)paid for that .
Click to expand...



😕

The VC are not the same as the NVA.



Google it, then laugh at yourself.

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Originally posted by: feralkid
The VC are not the same as the NVA.
Click to expand...

Yep, the VC were wiped out during the Tet-Offensive. NVA, not so much...
Click to expand...

I was in Vietnam 1970-1972...there were plenty of VC...and a fucking LOT of NVA...BUT, when you're looking at them down the barrel of a long gun...their names are all Charlie...and it was my intent to put at least one round dead center mass in every one I could.
 
*IF* well... let me ask my eight ball... Gives it a good shake. The answer to your question is "Try again!"

 
Originally posted by: squirrel dog
We carpet bombed the VC with B52's with not much effect .
Click to expand...

Uh?:roll: Linebacker 1 & 2 made North Vietnam come back to Paris with its tail between its legs to sign truce accords so that this would stop. It really disrupted their logistical train, even in the jungle, because they could never hear or see the planes and the first notice they got was when the bombs hit the ground around them.

The damage to their infrastructure and power grid was very severe. They were being bombed back to the stone age and had few SAMs left (the SAM storage depots and radar facilities became primary targets soon after the operation began). Unfortunately, the political will to see this through to completion was not there due to unrest at home.

 
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Our gov't wouldn't let the military win. Winning militarily was never the problem. The military having permission to do what it took to win, was.
Click to expand...

The war was won - by the people of Vietnam to be independant of colonization, finally.

We were wrong. Mostly with misguided good intentions, but what a price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top