Viet Nam: Could we have done it?

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-05 06:18pm

I've spent the last 10 hours sitting and writing a paper on Vietnam- it's a term paper, and I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, going so far as to interview a veteran. As I've been reading the history of the conflict, I've been wondering if it was possible to win. The SVA government was a corrupt despotism, hardly better than the commies, and certainly far less popular. The Americans, while lethal fighters, seemed to take no objectives over the course of the war- they busied themselves fighting the enemy rather than taking territory or capturing objectives.

My question is simple. If the US had actually attacked North Vietnam, conquering Hanoi and cutting off the flow of supplies from China, could America have won the war? Could it have been treated as a conventional conflict, and pulled out of the hole it was in?

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 06:20pm

I think America could've salvaged some had it weeded out corrupt south vietnamese officials and changed the way it carried out operations (like the unpopular hamlet program).

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-05-05 06:32pm

Abso-fucking-lutely. IIRC I saw an interview with a guy....you know...THAT guy...who said that when we pulled out, we were close to winning, anyway...didn't the VC lose like 20k soldiers during Tet alone? can't take those losses very long. HAd we pressed on, reformed the way the army was working (more unit cohesion, less one-for-one soldier-swapping, etc.) I think we would have kicked the shit outta them.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-05 06:41pm

Since Tet, the VC had been reduced to guiding NVA units about, and the attacks into Cambodia had cut off large amounts of supplies from the Ho Chi Minh trail. I'm saking if we could have done it in a year by immediatly striking into the North and cutting off the supply lines immediatly.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-05 07:27pm

Chardok wrote:Abso-fucking-lutely. IIRC I saw an interview with a guy....you know...THAT guy...who said that when we pulled out, we were close to winning, anyway...didn't the VC lose like 20k soldiers during Tet alone? can't take those losses very long. HAd we pressed on, reformed the way the army was working (more unit cohesion, less one-for-one soldier-swapping, etc.) I think we would have kicked the shit outta them.

The VC counted 32,000 dead and something like 70,000 wounded in the month following the opening of the Tet offensive. The result of that utter failure and the follow up US and ARVN counter attacks was the organizations effective destruction. The problem is that the NVA remained in existence and the North could supply a half million fresh warm bodies a year.

BoyRocketeer · Post by **BoyRocketeer** » 2004-05-05 07:44pm

I think the problem is that the South Vietnamese always thought America will be there, and didn't take the fight to themselves.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-05-05 07:48pm

The ONLY way the US could have won Vietnam is if they opened up the conflict and directly attacked North Vietnam, pulling out all the stops. If they had done that, they probably could have won the war. However, the problems in South Vietnam would not have disappeared, and the problems that the US would have in dealing with the international community after attacking North Vietnam would not have disappeared overnight.

m112880 · Post by **m112880** » 2004-05-05 09:20pm

ould the US have won? Yes by doing one of ether two options. One attack the north with full force. The only time during he war where the US could get the north to come to the peace talks and get anything done was when we let lose the bombers on the north and started to attack targets of worth.

Second way was to get a decent goverment in the south that would help and care for the people and would they would support.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-05-05 09:31pm

From a strictly military point of view, the US could have crushed the North.

However you have to take into account other world factors at the time. In order to attack the North, we would need far more resources. This means the possibility of pulling out of a few other commitments. This is a slight possibility. But here is the kicker. If we fully invaded the North, China was prepared to enter the war. They would have flooded North Vietnam. Now we would need our ENTIRE military in order to stave off the walking wall of Chinesse. This would require pulling out of every other comitment. We would never do this.

To put it simply, the politics dictated we could never win the war because China would have invaded, North Korea might have gone after South Korea, and with the bulk of the US in Southeast Asia, the USSR might even have taken a stroll to Paris.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2004-05-05 09:45pm

and so the nuclear war would have begun

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-05 09:47pm

NapoleonGH wrote:and so the nuclear war would have begun

No it wouldn't have, because the USSR wasn't stupid. They didn't attack when the nuclear balance of power was equal or even in slightly in there favor because the counter strike would still be too much to be worth while, and they certainly won't be attacking in the mid to late 1960's when the US still has a major advantage.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2004-05-05 10:45pm

Easily. Militarily, the battle for Vietnam was an absolute success. Virtually every major tactical or strategic goal we set out to accomplish in that war, we accomplished. The only war we lost was the PR war.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-05-05 11:50pm

North Vietnam could not have stood before the military might of the United States. No way, no how, not in a million years. So militarily, the North is doomed if we really let the Army do its job. The problem, as others have said, comes with repercussions elsewhere; this isn't happening in a bubble. So we win Vietnam, but lose out in too many other places to make it worthwhile.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-05-06 12:03am

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Easily. Militarily, the battle for Vietnam was an absolute success. Virtually every major tactical or strategic goal we set out to accomplish in that war, we accomplished. The only war we lost was the PR war.

What goals are you talking about? So what, US forces won battles. You can win every battle and still lose the war.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-05-06 03:26am

I heard (forgot if it was from around here from BGEN Draude) that the South was actually doing fairly well for itself after the US pullout. IIRC, it was only when we stopped funding/supplying them that they eventually lost to the North.

This is asusming, of course, by "win" you mean just keeping the South intact and not by reunifying the whole country or something.

But feel free to check me if I'm wrong here.

And also, since most people seem to assume we'd go willy-nilly into the North: what if the objective was just to keep the South from falling? Sort of like Korea Take Two in a way...

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2004-05-06 04:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
NapoleonGH wrote:and so the nuclear war would have begun
No it wouldn't have, because the USSR wasn't stupid. They didn't attack when the nuclear balance of power was equal or even in slightly in there favor because the counter strike would still be too much to be worth while, and they certainly won't be attacking in the mid to late 1960's when the US still has a major advantage.

i was more thinking that if a conventional war began in europe the massive soviet superiority in convential ground forces such as tank numbers of that era would probably have caused the french or british or americans to see the use of nukes as the only way to defend themselves, leading to at least some degree of a nuclear war

Anhaga · Post by **Anhaga** » 2004-05-06 04:28pm

RogueIce wrote: And also, since most people seem to assume we'd go willy-nilly into the North: what if the objective was just to keep the South from falling? Sort of like Korea Take Two in a way...

But isn't this more of the same as what actually did go on? US troops going into the jungle and achieving their objectives but being constantly nibbled at by the guerillas? And morale at home would still be falling- how would you suggest tha the US public summon up the will to keep their boys over there?

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-05-06 05:26pm

And also, since most people seem to assume we'd go willy-nilly into the North: what if the objective was just to keep the South from falling? Sort of like Korea Take Two in a way...

Obviously, that would be impossible. The North, operating from a secure source of supplies and manpower, could raid the South for a long time- and with mounting dissatisfaction back home, America didn't have a "long time."

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-06 08:06pm

NapoleonGH wrote:
i was more thinking that if a conventional war began in europe the massive soviet superiority in convential ground forces such as tank numbers of that era would probably have caused the french or british or americans to see the use of nukes as the only way to defend themselves, leading to at least some degree of a nuclear war

There was no question that if the Soviets attacked NATO nuclear weapons would be used, US forces in Europe wheren't called a tripwire for nothing. Becuase of that the Soviets will not attack, there outgunned in a nuclear war and won't pull equal until the 1970's.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-06 08:09pm

RogueIce wrote:
And also, since most people seem to assume we'd go willy-nilly into the North: what if the objective was just to keep the South from falling? Sort of like Korea Take Two in a way...

Umm... thats what we tried to do and it failed, such a plan really didn't have much hope once Kennedy abandon Laos to the bluffing communists. So long as the North remainsintact victory through attrition is near impossibul and unlike the korean war we won't be able to fight the enemys numbers along a stable frontline.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-06 08:50pm

And also, since most people seem to assume we'd go willy-nilly into the North: what if the objective was just to keep the South from falling? Sort of like Korea Take Two in a way...

Uh, we went "willy-nilly into the North" during the Korean war, too, all the way up the pennisula. The Chinese counter-offensive pushed the UN/American forces back into the south, and then the UN/American counterattack pushed the Communists back into the north and I think briefly occupied Pyongyang before the border was fixed.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-06 11:29pm

HemlockGrey wrote: Uh, we went "willy-nilly into the North" during the Korean war, too, all the way up the pennisula. The Chinese counter-offensive pushed the UN/American forces back into the south, and then the UN/American counterattack pushed the Communists back into the north and I think briefly occupied Pyongyang before the border was fixed.

US and ROK forces easily overran Pyongyang in 1950, however after it was lost to the Chinese attack it was never recaptured. What your thinking of is Seoul, which was lost again to the communists in January of 1951 but who in turn where again driven north by a UN counter attack which recaptured Seoul and fixed the lines at approximately those of the current DMZ. When that second drive north petered out in April 1951 the war was then stalemated until the ceasefire.