Jai Pey,
All right, you have a point but so do I…lets see if I can explain it better.
“I have to say something to this first… COME ON. Call it “strategic withdrawal” and quote 10-1 kill ratios, the States still left Veit Nam in one hell of a hurry”
The US went in when South Vietnam had an army of it’s own. By the time we decided to leave we were alone.
"and then I ask you, with such overwhelmingly superior kill numbers on their side, why didn’t they wipe every last one of 'em out? Because no matter how much the States hurt (or got hurt) they couldn’t find 'em all, let alone kill 'em.
You don’t need to find 'em when you can bombard acres from firebases miles away. The strength in the Vietnamese was not necessarily their guerilla tactics so much as their willingness to fight under any circumstances. They fought the French, Japanese and us for what?..50-60 years?. If there is anything we underestimated it was their resolve.
“Exactly what point did the States get across? And to whom? If it was all an exercise in American public opinion, backing up Jack Kennedy’s promise, it certainly didn’t work!”
Didn’t it? Communism spread to about 1/3 of the world population and about 1/4 of the world’s land. After 1970 how many countries followed Marx?
“If they were trying to teach North Veit Nam something, it was “How about that! Only 9 years of struggle and we’ve still won!””
No, what we got across was, “Ok, now that you’ve decided to form a one system workers political party we’re going to lay a world of hurt on you.”
"“anything more elevated than minor military incursions were just suicidal.”
Well, I disagree here… Because Nukes aren’t viable strike weapons, as any big time 1st world nation will tell you. They threaten, but to use them is ultimately a losing proposition."
Yeah, like I said, BECAUSE OF NUKES anything more elevated than minor military incursions were just suicidal.
“Example, the Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba. It sparked off the threat of nuclear war, but
no nukes were used to repel the invaders.”
Yeah, I think we can put the Bay of Pigs ‘invasion’ under the ‘minor military incursions’ category. The only backup we sent our forces were outdated prop planes as an attempt by the CIA to make the world think this wasn’t orchestrated by us.
“Or a 1st world country thinking it can do it. Whether or not they CAN remains to be seen. I think I saw it happen in the Gulf War, but considering Saddam’s antics in the past 2 years I’m starting to wonder.”
It’s time for your reality check here. In case you haven’t noticed the US and the UN have ALLOWED Saddam to stay in power. Why I don’t know, but are you going to dispute the fact that his ass wasn’t on the ropes in Baghdad?
“Nukes are a part of modern “total” war, but they’re not used in fighting… always conventional battles and I’ll be surprised if we ever live to see a nuclear exchange.”
Yeah, Margaret Thatcher loved Nukes because they made all out war between powerful nations too risky to undertake.
“On the other hand, the number of “modern” militaries that have tackled inferior forces and have either been repelled or were forced to repeat their action (I cite the States in Iraq,”
How long did it take for the US to drop Iraq like a bad habit? How many US casualties were there?..like 10, and they were from friendly fire.
“Russia in Chechnya,UUSR in Afghanistan”
Now you’re getting into the power of resolve in war. Make no mistake the couple of Stinger missiles the CIA sent the Afghanis were never a match for the Hind gun ships. It was their willingness to fight at any cost for any length of time with a country that could not afford the human costs and the time that won it.
“I’m more afraid of local warlord-led armies taking over the West than having to “duck and cover”.”
Well I’m more afraid of local warlord’s making a “duck and cover” necessary.
{{disclaimer}- the numbers presented in this post are unsubstantiated. They are based on conservative estimates that I remember from some teacher who told a friend a long time ago. The real numbers would be appreciated.}