Announcement

**Serb** · March 1, 2003, 09:29

Originally posted by Lancer
My question is 'would we win', not 'was it right'.

I've answered exactly this question- 'Sure'.

**Pekka** · March 1, 2003, 09:42

Yes, the US would win more clearly.

I'm not sure if it would be because of air superioritys importance these days since they got bombed last time pretty heavily. Still would have to go and fight a lot on the ground in the jungles.. but without any major powers backing, they wouldn't have a chance to win. Only to delay their defeat, though they could be good in it, trying to make it too costly for the US.. but they wouldn't be able to do it wihtout any backing.

And big factor in my opinion would be that the tunnels would not be so meaningful like last time. Of course they have some new tricks to show, but I don't think they'd be that good. So US wins for sure. Also the US have lots of experience in Vietnam, so it wouldn't be something new and on theoretical base with plans. It wouldn't be easy war, but I can't see any other results than US pounds enemies into submission 10-0.

**Serb** · March 1, 2003, 09:48

Originally posted by Sandman
The US would have at least as difficult a time, since the Vietnamese technology would also have advanced, and their population has almost doubled since the last Vietnam war. Can you hold down a country of 80 million?

Vietnamese technology? LOL.

They fought with Soviet weapons 30 years ago, and their modern army equiped with Soviet weaponry now. Sure they have some examples of relatively modern Russian weapons, but I doubt they have it in enough quantity to win full scale war against USA.

Mobilization of pouplation it's pretty cool thing, but when you don't have industry to produce weapons and no one send to you assault rifles, ammo, SAMs, etc. it means you have to fight with spears agains much more advanced enemy.
The only way to win such war is to inflict unacceptable casualties to enemy, to make unprofitable to him to stay on your territory. This means that your casualties will be dozens of times more than casualties of your enemy. How many years Yanks accepted casualties and stayed in Vietnam? Now imagine that their enemy didn't have equal weapons. American casuality rate would droped dramaticaly and they could stayed there for MUCH longer time, if not forever.

**Sava** · March 1, 2003, 09:53

No... the Vietnamese would fight to the death against such an imperialist invasion. The US killed around 4 million people during that first Vietnam Atrocity while losing only in the tens-of-thousands. Nice kill ratio, nothing to show for it. But even with knowing the past outcome, Dubya would probably try again just for the hell of it. He's seems eager to play God with other peoples' lives.

**Demerzel** · March 1, 2003, 09:56

Originally posted by Serb
The only way to win such war is to inflict unacceptable casualties to enemy, to make unprofitable to him to stay on your territory. This means that your casualties will be dozens of times more than casualties of your enemy. How many years Yanks accepted casualties and stayed in Vietnam? Now imagine that their enemy didn't have equal weapons. American casuality rate would droped dramaticaly and they could stayed there for MUCH longer time, if not forever.

Ever since Vietnam, America has been afraid to commit ground troops in any serious quantity to any war that might cause them to lose any casualties.

The first time they fought against anyone with the firepower to do that ( Gulf War ), they bombed it to bits for a month or two first. Somalia, the loss of "just" 18 lives forced a US withdrawal... imagine in Vietnam Pt.2 you might lose 1,800 or 18,000 - is that seriously going to be allowed? To win, you'd have to go into the jungle and casualties will result frequently as they did before from ambushes, booby traps, etc.. Plus as I said before, you'd have to have the local population wanting you to be there or you might as well just kill them all to win.

Finally, remember a good guerilla unit will use the enemy's weapons against him. Sun Tzu would be the thing to quote here if I cba to get up and find thre relevant ones.

*note a single loss of life is tragic, "just" is to make the point not to trivialise.

**Lancer** · March 1, 2003, 10:04

Yes Demerzel. I didn't say anything but I was waiting for it. The people of the US are weaker now. We could no more fight a long, hard war than put a man on the moon. It is the US that would fail, even with all our tech. Your answer is why I started this thtread. Wondering if anyone else would see it.

**Lancer** · March 1, 2003, 10:10

Damn I hate my last post. Yet it's what I truly think. I have no faith in the young people today, just look at this forum.

**OneFootInTheGrave** · March 1, 2003, 10:12

US would nuke the vietnamese today, and cause WWIII.

**Serb** · March 1, 2003, 10:14

Ever since Vietnam, America has been afraid to commit ground troops in any serious quantity to any war that might cause them to lose any casualties.

Heroic behaviour. That's how true World's policeman should act.

To win, you'd have to go into the jungle and casualties will result frequently as they did before from ambushes, booby traps, etc..

And? I doubt casualties caused by body traps could be equal to casualties caused by for example modern land mine.

Plus as I said before, you'd have to have the local population wanting you to be there or you might as well just kill them all to win.

It's not a problem for Americans. They easily could exterminate 1000 enemy civilians to save 1 American soldier.

Finally, remember a good guerilla unit will use the enemy's weapons against him.

It's very unreliable source of weapons, don't you think so?

They would win this war if
1) They would exterminate all Veitnamese.
or
2) They could brake their enemy's will to fight.
I guess they have all nesscesary means at least for first.

p.s. Seriously speaking, I don't believe they have balls to ever return in Veitnam.

**Demerzel** · March 1, 2003, 10:26

Originally posted by Serb

Heroic behaviour. That's how true World's policeman should act.

It's not a problem for Americans. They easily could exterminate 1000 enemy civilians to save 1 American soldier.

hehe, those two belong together.

**Urban Ranger** · March 1, 2003, 10:27

Originally posted by Serb
Mobilization of pouplation it's pretty cool thing, but when you don't have industry to produce weapons and no one send to you assault rifles, ammo, SAMs, etc. it means you have to fight with spears agains much more advanced enemy.

There are several things you forgot. Things like rifles, bullets, and knifes can be made easily, and the VC can and did capture equipment from the South Vietnamese army and even from the US army sometimes. Another thing they could do was to raid depots and supply lines.

Don't forget, the PRC supplied North Vietnam a whole lot more than the Soviets ever did.

**DAVOUT** · March 1, 2003, 10:37

Originally posted by Lancer
Damn I hate my last post. Yet it's what I truly think. I have no faith in the young people today, just look at this forum.

Perhaps you could remind the young people of all the battlefields where your heroism was displayed, or ask some veterans to tell the joys and pleasures they had in Vietnam.

**Lancer** · March 1, 2003, 11:05

.

**Lancer** · March 1, 2003, 11:08

Davout eh? Named for Napoeons general?

**Lancer** · March 1, 2003, 11:11

About right there hasnt been a Frenxchman in almost 200 years that was worth a ****. Even your emporor swaid "they wanted me to be another Washington"

Ha, he didn't have it in him. Maybe we need to go back a few more hundred.

Announcement

If the US were to fight the Vietnam war today, would we win?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment