Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
President Eisenhower sent the first troops to Vietnam and from that time...until Nixon finally ordered that some of the proper targets were no longer safe from attack...the military fought with one hand behind its back.
Those that supplied the NVA and the Port of Haiphong were not allowed to become targets and the cities of North Vietnam were not allowed to become targets. Finally Nixon ordered 24/7 bombing of the cities and harbor and in eleven days it brought the North to the peace table and facilliated our withdrawal of our forces. Two years after our forces withdrew the South was overrun. The Southern forces got beat not US forces.
The Vietnam conflict would have been over in one day with the use of Tactical Nukes. It would have been over in 30 days with the use of sustained bombing on the proper targets (as was proven by 11 days of sustained bombing on some of the proper targets). It would have been over in 90 days with a ground invasion of the North.
|
Well, maybe if you were a general you could've won the war in 30 days like you say, but don't you think that the military would have bombed the proper targets to begin with instead of mindlessly bombing like you're saying... I mean, they killed over 2 million civilians in the war by mindlessly bombing, yet you are saying they could've WON in 30 days by bombing "proper targets". (Probably with less civilian casualities)
Anyway, I still don't believe it is "pussyfooting" when 3.5 million troops serve in a war, although your definition and mine may vary. I see your "pussyfooting" as horrible leadership (10 year war could've been 30 days?).
And, The Cold War could've been over in 1 day if we used "tactical nukes".