I notice the news always Claims US would win over NK in war. but we lost vietnam?

N

noob_trad3r

We had a north/south situation in Vietnam and we lost 50,000 US soldiers and we lost that war. We lost against an opponent that had inferior technology to USA back then.

Even McNamara predicted victory in months and it would be a cake walk. Unfortunately that was incorrect and 10 years later, 50,000 dead americans and the NVA/North Vietnam won and the country was unified under communism.

I wonder if we are repeating history and making an assumption of an easy victory again like we did in the 1960s.
 
There is zero chance of U.S. regular troops being involved in a ground war in North Korea. And there is very little chance of a war with North Korea. There is a big chance, however, of billions being spent and wasted on military build-up, and posturing. The Military industrial complex, and Senators from States with major military bases would love it, but such must be avoided. Some of the recent rhetoric has been childish and rather absurd. The U.S. will work quietly behind the scene with the Chinese to calm the waters. We have extremely competent leadership in the State department as of now.
 
Quote from noob_trad3r:

We had a north/south situation in Vietnam and we lost 50,000 US soldiers and we lost that war. We lost against an opponent that had inferior technology to USA back then.

Even McNamara predicted victory in months and it would be a cake walk. Unfortunately that was incorrect and 10 years later, 50,000 dead americans and the NVA/North Vietnam won and the country was unified under communism.

I wonder if we are repeating history and making an assumption of an easy victory again like we did in the 1960s.
More...


If the South Koreans show as much interest in defending themselves as the South Vietnamese did, then the outcome would most likely be the same
 
Quote from mgabriel01:

If the South Koreans show as much interest in defending themselves as the South Vietnamese did, then the outcome would most likely be the same
More...
Actually you have this entirely wrong. The South Vietnamese defended themselves valiantly against the American invaders. The Vietcong were on the other side for a very good reason, as were their families in the South Vietnamese countryside . Why should they fight against their own interests and on the side of a puppet government set up by a foreign power? They shouldn't --you wouldn't have, I hope-- and they didn't. They wanted their country back.

They defeated the French in a war that was 80% paid for by the American taxpayer, they Defeated the Americans in a war that was 100% paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, and they no doubt would have defeated the Japanese invaders as well, had that been necessary.

Your criticism is misplaced, it should have been directed specifically at the U.S. directed puppet government forces. But should they be blamed for their, shall we say, lack of enthusiasm?
 
Vietnam war was fought by US with one hand tied behind the back. Also, the technologies available those days required too much ground interaction between opposing soldiers.

There were no bulletproof items available to help the soldiers dodging getting killed or seriously wounded in those days. In both Iraq and Afganistan, US is using very advanced bulletproof covering for its soldiers.

Lastly, guerrilla warfare is unwinnable if the other side is supported by some power that cannot be touched.
 
And don't forget the number of draftees. And that Nam was largely jungle terrain.

If it had been anyone but the French who bailed, we might have given our entry a little more thought.
 
too bad truman was not in charge. an A bomb on Haiphong would have ended the war + given the US a modicum of response +saved the lives of 50,000 fine american boys.
 
Quote from lcranston:

I doubt China would have liked that. :)
More...

china was a backwater of a country with mao giving syphilis to young maidens and on the edge of mass starvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top