Could the USA have won the Vietnam War?
 

Discuss?

No

if we really wanted to, we coulda turned the whole place into a parking lot in 5 minutes.

Then why didn't we?

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/st...40531140357545
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/st...40604194804799

the same reason we don't go after Mosque's in Iraq when they're loaded with people shooting at us...

we got enough bad press.

not in a million years

Yes...with the qualifier that "won" means the defeat of the NVA and the fall of the Hanoi government. It could have been won in a single day with the use of nukes. It could have been won with in 30 days by 24/7 conventional bombing of the North (11 days of 24/7 bombing ordered by President Nixon brought the peace agreements about). It could have been won within 90 days by a ground invasion of the North.

The US had about 50,000 soldiers killed.

Estimates for NVA deaths range up to 5,000,000. On a very low side, at least 500,000 were killed.

The USA packed their bags and went home. When you lose by a ration of anywhere from 10X to 100X .. it's a very small "win"

Quick answer.. no..

btw.. kings stupid suggestion of nukes is not more than ya can expect.. It would be more than Hanoi that would be fucked - the repercussions with Nixon and the US would be stupid.

Goldwater got roasted for that suggestion.

Hi...

Just thought you'd like to know they flew over 580,000 (five hundred and eighty THOUSAND) bombing missions over Laos.


Damn!If only we could have have done just a few more. We were soooo fucking close.

Let's see... how much does a bomb cost? How many were there again? Who profited (and who went into debt) over the 'war' ?

There were definitely winners in that war... and it wasn't anyone in Vietnam and it wasn't the American public who footed the bill.

US went off the gold standard cuz of that war.

That, and coupled with the Arab oil embargo of the 70s, plunged the US into a long ass recession.

FYI...nukes were considered for use in Korea...in Vietnam...in the 1st Gulf War and I am satisfied they were considered for use in this current conflict. General MacArthur asked to use 9-11 nukes during the Korean Conflict...all on China...I think. I am not sure how many were considered for use in Vietnam or the 1st Gulf War. The US military considers nukes to be viable weapons and will use them if the politicians make the decision that the circumstances call for their use. The US is currently working on new and improved smaller nukes...and the budget for this was just recently passed.

I think no - jungles and mad vietnameses who save thier country. USA don't have a chances.

yea.. yea.. know all that - and the slipping around nuke treaties to develop other shit. It's you thats paying for it - so should make ya happy :-)

Seems like the US has bad luck in picking its local regimes to back. Ngo Dinh Diem and the generals who succeeded him were successful only in turning Vietnam into a goldmine for corrupt officials hell bent on sucking up US economic/military assistance and sending it to overseas accounts.

At least the RVN was good for something :winkwink:

LOL, yeah right, we lost the war because of Kerry:1orglaugh

The swiftboat vets are upset not because JK said attrocities happened, but because they did happen & he exposed what some of them were doing. I wish I had access to the photographs I saw years ago taken by someone who suffered severe emotional problems afterwards, long before this was ever a political campaign issue.

same old bullshit. if he really was against the war why is he using it in his campaign? he exposed the evil bastards he now stuffs in a trailer and tows around to speeches. he pulls them out, shakes their hands infront of the cameras, and back in the trailer they go. this is funny, its just like a corrupt cop who admitted taking bribes and framing innocent people running for police commissioner on the campaign platform of being a great cop.

He didn't say all of our people were committing attrocities. The guys he has making appearances actually served with him, unlike some who have a lot to say in ads...

no, he said he heard stories from different people he served with.
he has no idea what the vets he's campaigning with did during the war, so maybe he shouldnt be shaking their babykilling hands

Wrong. He was representing a group of Vets that were opposed to the war when he testified before the Congress and he was repeating what had been told to him by Vets that served in various branches in various ways. He does know what the people did that are campaigning with him...at least for the period of time that they served under him...as he was their Commanding Officer.

9-11 nukes? wtf were they smoking

Short answer ...yes. If winning is getting the other side to beg you to stop. But, I think a more pragmatic view would be in order...

Long answer is all the cold war conflicts were fought as proxies for outrigth conflict from U.S. / U.S.S.R or China.

Problem was Cambodian supply lines and assistance to the North from China. Much like it was an open secret that Soviet MIg pilots were in N. Korea. (China was supporting N. Korea as well in case folks here have forgotten and they felt it was a victory against the west).

There was no authorization from congress to go after Cambodia, and China of course would have been a whole other can of worms.

BTW we couldn't simply go nuclear, as we did want to improve relations with China. Use nukes would have had very practical implications. I think China just developed nukes in 69.

China is unpredictable and crazy btw (um...i.e. great leap forward from Mao).
They've been abused by both the British and Japanese and have a massive inferiority complex; yet, they are GINORMOUS even at that point.

Nixon wanted to save face, but opennning relations with China meant helping to "win the cold war" against the Soviet's communist ideology , so why worry about a minor "battle" against Vietnam? Especially since it was outside our "sphere..." If we won in a conventional sense, we might have set our relationship with China back...

Of course Americans vastly underrate Nixon's performance as pres...and tend to forget that Eisenhower got us involved originally with assistence to the French, and the "communist containment" philosophy was conceived long before Nixon.

Like all lost wars, blame the french (j/k)

I think it has a lot to do with perception...Nixon can't fight the historical perspective on his presidency (though he did do a lot of questionable abuse of executive power shit). Nixon wasn't telegenic, so he always looked like a prick on tv.

While folks like Reagan get away scott free for many of the same things (Iran-contra!) while not really accomplishing much with the increased executive power, simply b/c he looked trust-worthy on tv.

[btw.. let me through in that Oliver North is a pompous criminal prick who has no business as a commentator on tv.]

Yes, I do think it is that simple. Perception is everything (truth is relative?)...

i.e. George being an "hero" for giving a speech on ground zero rubble.

Why don't you just admit it. You weren't there. You didn't see what was going on. You really have no idea.

The biggest problem to our "not winning" the VN war was the fact that we did not retain control over that which we acquired through fire. We would go in, take an objective and, then, leave the next day. We did that, day after day after day.

Could the US have won the war? South Vietnam is smaller than the state of California. Even back then, large areas were NOT controlled by the VC or NVA. If the politicals had left the military alone and allowed us to do what we had been trained to do, YES, we would have won it....way before the early '70s.

How do I know? From 65 to 66, I was an infantry radio operator with B Co., 1st Bn., 7th US Cavalry, 1st Air Cavalry Division, in the Central Highlands. If you saw "We Were Soldiers," then you know of my company.

However, bottom line....if you weren't there, you have no clue as to what you speak of. Plain and simple. You're just a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks.

NO

nope it was uncharted territory

yes, if kerry would have stayed just two more months! :1orglaugh

I really doubt it.

yes, no, maybe?

I think the US could have won it ... if it actually showed some long term vision and clear thinking. There IS a big difference between a NATIONALIST and a Marxist - Leninist - Maoist.

The former can choose a CAPITALIST path of economic development.

Yeah, Kerry is a pussy compared to Bush. Imagine the gutless wonder of going to Nam and getting shot up when he could have just gone AWOL from National Guard duty.

Everyone knows the latter course of action (along with doing lines in Camp David while your dad was prez) is the true definition of HEROISM.

When will morons learn? :ugone2far

IMX,

Intelligent, well-reasoned, and cogent post as usual. Good point re the proxy fight re Cold War. Which hints at the US inability to see the difference between ethno-nationalist struggles of liberation from communist upheavals.

No.

If they had fought the war from Vietnam instead of Washington, DC - yes

You can't win a war with one hand tied behind your back.

The fact that the South Vietnamese Army was not devoted to the cause made it even more difficult.

Who tied the hand behind the US' back?
Self-inflicted? Lack of Will?

Because we were afraid of accidently killing a Russian, Cuban or Chinaman that was working a SAM site in Hanoi or the Port of Haiphong. So, I guess you could say it was self-inflicted.

We should have told them if they did not want to get hurt, they had better go home, but the Cold War was raging, and no one wanted to risk WW III

Hard to fight A war when you're avoiding ANOTHER war.

War's a bitch, I guess :(

Yep MacArthur did ask to use Nukes... would of ended alot of wars really quick too. But MacArthur was forced to retire... then again nukes would of ended the world.

I don't know about that, it has survived meteor hits, Ice Age, everything that has been thrown at it.

There may not be any people left, but the world would probably still be here. :)

Being able to win doesn't consist merely of having the capacity to kill everyone opposing you. It consists of realistically being able to achieve your specific goal.

Could the US have turned the whole of Vietnam into a glass desert? Sure. That isn't the question though. The question is if the US could have turned South Vietnam into a stable, pro-western state without unacceptably high costs in both lives and money in the eyes of the US population, and without unacceptable damage to international relations.


What it all comes down to is that in the real world, there is no "could have". There is only a "did".

WOW!

Awesome post. Displays maturity as well as logic.

It's true... the answer to my question really revolves on how one defines "win" or "won"

Keep posting knowledge, bro!

First.. It was never declared a "war"...
It was a police action...

But as with any battle.. it's big business..

Johnson had his hands in oil and steel.. Kennedy was preparing to send in the big guns and end it when he was assassinated.. hmmm...

Johnson's wife's family owned the factory that made the containers for the rations..

Johnson's buddys also had lots of money in oil and steel....

Funny how the conflict was ended after Johnson left office...

It wasn't meant to be won..

Got a link?

You are aware that the our troops were not withdrawn until 5 years into the Nixon Presidency...aren't you?