01-03-2003 14:44									#1
	If the US were to fight the Vietnam war today, would we win? Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Our tech edge is much greater now, we have a president that has a 'go in and win' attitude, the Sovs are belly up and the Chinese are living high on a flood of new dollars they might not want to lose.

Regarding the tech edge:

Night vision is much better and we have alot more of them.

Our choppers now don't even compare to what we had before.

Smart bombs

Stealth planes

Tunnel detecting radar

Bradley

Thoughts?

	01-03-2003 15:53									#2
	Re: If the US were to fight the Vietnam war today, would we win? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Lancer If the US were to fight the Vietnam war today, would we win?

Sure.
No Soviets- no problems. You could simply nuke them anytime you wish, but it wouldn't be nesscesary. Without Soviet military aid Vietnam would lost anyway.
Go get your revenge, the road is clear now.

	01-03-2003 16:00									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I don't believe that the Vietnam war was morally justified Serb. My question is 'would we win', not 'was it right'.

	01-03-2003 16:09									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I believe you'd win the war, because there wouldn't be such a mobilization in the Vietnamese population today than 30 years ago, and no soviet support.

The tech edge is nearly unsignificant, because once Vietnam's infrastructure would be destroyed, the war would turn into guerilla warfare in the jungle. The only significant advance here would be the night vision.

If the Vietnamese mobilized as much as 30 years ago, they would eventually win, because it would be a hell for the US to keep the territory, with many needed and vulnerable foot soldiers.

	01-03-2003 16:43									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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?

	01-03-2003 16:45									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

No.

	01-03-2003 16:48									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

No. Just because you have better choppers doesn't mean they don't have portable SAM missiles. the tanks and APCs probably won't work too well in a jungle, either.

	01-03-2003 16:48									#8
	Remove this text

Sandman, doubled! I'm amazed. Since when, '72 or earlier?

	01-03-2003 16:51									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

UR, true, but we have better anti SAM missiles. They can remember the location of the SAM even after its radar has been turned off. Also, stealth could take them out before the choppers show up.

	01-03-2003 17:07									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It was 43 million in '72, now it's close to 80 million. It will certainly continue to rise for next thirty years, even as the Vietnamese government implements family planning measures.

It was 12 million in 1900, so it's multiplied by six during the twentieth century.

	01-03-2003 17:22									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It's only a thin country, they'll all be falling off the edge before too long

It depends on your mission...if you want to level the country, sure, if you want to minimise civilian loss and conquer the country on the ground (as well as air support), you'd still be in for one hell of a rough time...

	01-03-2003 17:24									#12
	Tired of ads?

Sandman, that's like the Philippines, but maybe even worse. In the Philippines there are children playing everywhere. It contrasts with suburban America or Europe so greatly as to be a bit of a shock at first. It's great to watch them play, but we brought a birthday cake in to grade school for a nephew, and the kids were almost fighting over getting a piece. It's become a culture of survival. Parents feel that the more kids they have the better chance that they have to an old age that is provided for. The way that we might look to our portfolio, they look to having alot of kids, and bear the cost of it themselves.

Down the street from us is a family that has 9 kids, the 10th is on the way. the eldest is getting ready for college and I am going to pay his way. That way he can pay for the next, etc...

I remember when I was a kid, a family by the name of Sullivan lived down the street. They had 12 kids. You don't see that anymore in the west.

Sorry, I always find these statistics fascinating, for what they mean to the world. An example is Israel. There will be more arabs living in Isreal than Isrealis within the next few years. In 20 years...Isreal will be bred out of existance. Amazing.

Sorry, ythis is my night to 'tie one on'.

	01-03-2003 17:28									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

PH, yeah, I agree. One hell of a fight...but I think it would be just possible...

Maybe not with twice the people however. Sandman's stat is something to think on.

	01-03-2003 17:40									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The US had a massive technology advantage in the Vietnam war and it did not help them much in the guerilla warfare they had to fight. So why should it help them more now?

You will only win a guerilla war if you get the general population on your side, as the British did in Malaya in the '50s. Destroying villages and ruining the livelihood of the villagers will only push them onto the enemies' side as happened in Vietnam. Note the section at the end on the way that we played & beat the guerillas at their own game

quote: http://www.ausvets.com.au/malaya.htm Although the British Army in Malaya at this time consisted of 11 battalions of British, Gurkha and Malay troops, the number of guerillas bearing arms outnumbered the actual fighting men of the British Army as most battalions were under strength. The Army's first task was a holding operation, keeping the guerillas on the move by constant searching, patrolling and ambushing. Throughout the country there were some 600,000 squatters who lived on the fringes of the jungle on land to which they had no real title or right. The guerillas used these settlements as a refuge and to store food. The government decided to uproot and resettle these squatters in New Villages where they could be isolated from the guerillas. In these villages they were able to build their own houses and farm land that was to be legally theirs. By the end of 1951 more than two-thirds of the squatters were living in 509 New Villages. The guerillas were thus cut off from their usual food supplies and were forced to move. At the same time a reward system was set up whereby persons giving information leading to the capture of guerillas were given cash bounties. This led many guerillas who had surrendered to give information on their former comrades. Throughout the Emergency the Government maintained a policy of policing villages rather than destroying them and of "winning the hearts and minds" of the people. As a result, the Air Force rarely bombed or strafed targets near any town or populated area. Its vital contribution lay in air reconnaissance; dropping of supplies to Army units operating in jungles; evacuating casualties; and providing mobility for the Security forces with helicopters which were used very effectively to move troops from one point to another when searching out and subsequently attacking suspected camps. 1957-1960 Unlike the American policy in Vietnam of "search and destroy" and then return to base, the British and Commonwealth soldiers in Malaya played the guerillas at their own game by living out in the jungle for weeks on end and ambushing them. By 1953 these tactics had succeeded in forcing Chin Peng to move his headquarters into Thailand. He had not been able to establish any liberated areas and by the end of 1958 there were only 250 guerillas operating in Malaya.

In the end, the US might have won in Vietnam if they had employed the brute force tactic that the Chiefs of Staff wanted, i.e. have 10 US soldiers there for every guerrila, and if they had had freer rules of engagement. A limited campaign to defend a corrupt government was always going to fail though.

The ironic thing is that the US supported the French in their war in Vietnam with massive support under the Marshall Plan even though they knew that the French were hated there. If they had supported them with troops then the Vietnam war might not have had to happen.

quote: http://www.plp.org/vietnam/vn2.html "The enemy had much popular sympathy, and many civilians -aided them by providing both shelter and information. … guerrilla warfare work two ways; normally only one side can enjoy reliable citizen help...the French could not win the war because the internal political situation in Vietnam. … badly weakened their military position. (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, p. 373)

That quote would come back to haunt the US during its fight.

	01-03-2003 17:57									#15
	Support Apolyton

Demerzel, a truly great post. I'll sleep on it. It'll be the last post I read before I call it a night.

Thanks!

	01-03-2003 18:29									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

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

	01-03-2003 18:42									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	01-03-2003 18:48									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 18:53									#19
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	01-03-2003 18:56									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 19:04									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	01-03-2003 19:10									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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.

	01-03-2003 19:12									#23
	Got spare money?

US would nuke the vietnamese today, and cause WWIII.

	01-03-2003 19:14									#24
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 19:26									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 19:27									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 19:37									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

	01-03-2003 20:05									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

.

Last edited by Lancer on 01-03-2003 at 20:19

	01-03-2003 20:08									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Davout eh? Named for Napoeons general?

	01-03-2003 20:11									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.