Is the United States REALLY "At War"

[Odesio]

@David Simmons

Oh, I agree with your main point. I would point out though, that the two big shooting wars we engaged in during the cold war, Korea and Vietnam, were, at best, only half-heartedly supported by the populace in general, mobilization was the minimum that was required and neither one was particularly successful.

Not particularly succeessful? Tell that to the South Koreans who enjoy a much higher standard of living then their neighbors to the north.

Marc

[David_Simmons]

@MGibson

Not particularly succeessful? Tell that to the South Koreans who enjoy a much higher standard of living then their neighbors to the north.

Marc

Korea was more successful that Vietnam by a long way. The Korean war went on for a long time after Truman’s original aim was achieved.

The original goal was to drive the North Koreans out and restore the status quo ante at the 38th parallel. However, the collapse of the North Korean army after the Inchon landings resulted in a change in plan, in midstream, into one of uniting the whole peninsula.

So I guess Plan 1, Mod 0 was a success. Plan 1, Mod 1 resulted in the Chinese entering the war and another couple of years of casualties with no resulting gain. South Koreans are doing well. Their relatives in the north aren’t.

I would say, all in all, not particularly successful.

[TheSquirrelfish]

@Rashak Mani

Still my idea is that the USSR is a good example of how a “war” that is not a war was won in the past… basically outspending and outmaneuvering. Naturally the resources poured into the Cold War were enormous… but still it wasn’t a war in the regular sense.

And the USSR broke its army playing in Afghanistan, while we, among others supplied arms to the mujahideen there. Now broke Russians are selling arms, Central Asians are giving arms, and don’t forget thr radical Islamists… hopefully we won’t break our army.