• 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 had the weapons and technology of today during

J

jtvang125

Diamond Member
Without resorting to nukes I don't think the outcome would be very much different than before. Those VC were tough little SOBs.
 
nope. they would have to change the way they faught it. as in do not worry what the public thinks and let the military people do what they do (within lawas and rules of course.)
 
US has never lost any significant military operation in Vietnam. They were successfully pushing back the Vietnamese army, however it was the political pressure that determined the outcome.
 
No. We had the technology and weaponry to win in Vietnam as it was. We kicked their asses in every way possible, but as a country, we just didn't have the will to win...Way too much political strife causes the politicians to restrain the military and tied their hands so we couldn't win.
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
No. We had the technology and weaponry to win in Vietnam as it was. We kicked their asses in every way possible, but as a country, we just didn't have the will to win...Way too much political strife causes the politicians to restrain the military and tied their hands so we couldn't win.
Click to expand...

 
FYI If the military in Vietnam was allowed to go all out, and was not held back like they where, with you can only push them back this far orders.

We would have won no doubt about it.

We lost the war politically and support wise and that led to a military pullout.


Don't forget we did have nukes, it would have been very, very messy but we could have won if our full potential was released back then.

According to the media we are loosing in Iraq so, I think with today's news and liberals we would have done much much worse. Even with better weapons.

I could be wrong but that's what I think.


EDIT I type to slow what BoomerD said.
 
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
FYI If the military in Vietnam was allowed to go all out, and was not held back like they where, with you can only push them back this far orders.

We would have won no doubt about it.

We lost the war politically and support wise and that led to a military pullout.


Don't forget we did have nukes, it would have been very, very messy but we could have won if our full potential was released back then.

According to the media we are loosing in Iraq so, I think with today's news and liberals we would have done much much worse. Even with better weapons.

I could be wrong but that's what I think.


EDIT I type to slow what BoomerD said.
Click to expand...

Won vietnam with nukes? Weren't we there to stop the spread of communism, not obliterate an entire country?

No, the weapons wouldn't make a difference. Vietnam was lost because we had no concrete objective and no realistic means of subduing an entire country.
 
No. If they can't win the "War on Terriorism" in Iraq, fighting against the same guerilla type opposition, what makes you think they can win the war in Vietnam
 
No.

We won almost EVERY engagement, but still lost.

Example: Tet Offensive

United States +Allies: 50,000+ (estimate)
North Vietnam: 85,000+ (estimate)

Casualties: United States +Allies
USA/AUS/SKOR: 1,536 dead, 7,764 wounded, 11 missing
ARVN: 2,788 dead, 8,299 wounded, 587 missing
Total: 4,324 dead, 16,063 wounded, 598 missing
Total Casualties: 20985

Casualties: Them
25,000-45,000 dead
30,000-50,000 wounded
6,000 captured
Total Casualties: ~60,000-100,000

They lost badly... so bad in fact they couldn't do anything effectively for two years.

We lost because we needed to expand the war to the north, but that risked China and Russia getting involved. Vietnam borders China.

 
I hate when people say we 'lost' the vietnam war. It's true our objectives weren't accomplished but we sure as hell didn't lose.

America killed 61,000 vietcong in 1966 while only losing 6,000 troops. That's pretty scary. I don't know how anyone can say that we didn't kick ass when the ratio was well over 10-1 for us. And if America disregarded civilian casualties like the vietcong we could have literally beat them into the dirt. Just bomb every villiage harboring vietcong terrorists.

Nowadays with infared technology and much better generals, they'd be lookin at a 50-1 ratio.
 
Originally posted by: Baked
No. If they can't win the "War on Terriorism" in Iraq, fighting against the same guerilla type opposition, what makes you think they can win the war in Vietnam
Click to expand...

Vietnam was not won by guerilla warfare btw. Iraq and Vietnam are being fought in two very different ways, hard to compare the two.
 
The US could have one back then.............blame politics and fvcked up rules of engagement.

Of course today's technology would help. Cruise missiles, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, etc..... but most of the tech today was around then......

I'd imagine it would bring more than its share of problems too. We would do something stupid due to our arrogance,,,,,,,,,,,,like not putting guns/ cannons on jets.......
 
The reason you lost Vietnam is the same reason you will lose the "war on terror". Because the more you kill, and by golly you did kill around 3 million in vietnam, about 1mill completely innocent, the more will hate you and be willing to join the fight.
Ofcourse you could've just killed them all, but that's reserved for imperialist terrorist states.
I'm still surprised nothing happened to the US after that massive slaughter of innocents during Vietnam.
 
Originally posted by: Amplifier
I hate when people say we 'lost' the vietnam war. It's true our objectives weren't accomplished but we sure as hell didn't lose.

America killed 61,000 vietcong in 1966 while only losing 6,000 troops. That's pretty scary. I don't know how anyone can say that we didn't kick ass when the ratio was well over 10-1 for us. And if America disregarded civilian casualties like the vietcong we could have literally beat them into the dirt. Just bomb every villiage harboring vietcong terrorists.

Nowadays with infared technology and much better generals, they'd be lookin at a 50-1 ratio.
Click to expand...

You lost because you retreated from the country, and the country fell under the rule of the VC.
That is a loss no matter how many deaths they attained.
 
Nope.

The problem with Vietnam wasn't the weapons and technology. But the tactics and techniques. The people running the show were under the mentality of "If statistics show it takes an average of 10 shots to kill one person, if we have someone shoot 100 times they should kill 10 people. So lets make them shoot 100 times." It wasn't fought like it was a war.
 
Originally posted by: BoomerD
No. We had the technology and weaponry to win in Vietnam as it was. We kicked their asses in every way possible, but as a country, we just didn't have the will to win...Way too much political strife causes the politicians to restrain the military and tied their hands so we couldn't win.
Click to expand...

Yep. And the fact that we had to fight the war in such a way as to not have China and the USSR become directly involved.
 
Originally posted by: jtvang125
Without resorting to nukes I don't think the outcome would be very much different than before. Those VC were tough little SOBs.
Click to expand...

I agree. We had the technology to anhilate the Vietnamese back in the '60s and '70s.

Originally posted by: TitanDiddly
Depends, would we have all the same liberal whining?
Click to expand...

If there was a draft, yes, if not more so. If not, then it would be about the same level as it is currently for Dick and Bush's Excellent Adventure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top