The Vietnam war BBC4

[gadgetmac]

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

Are the Taliban not gradually retaking all of their previous territory? It’s widely acknowledged that its just a matter of time.

[Eric Mc]

Uppercut said:

Eric Mc said:

So, even though the Vietnam War was truly awful, was it a waste as far as the Vietnamese are concerned?

I didn't see any of the Vietnamese contributor's in the documentary, saying it was worth it.

I haven't seen anyone been asked that question. Maybe they will be asked it in the final episode.

I don't think anyone who has lived through a war will ever say it was really worth it. But their children or grandchildren might.

[lemmingjames]

Uncle John said:

Mmmmmm. Not sure on that, but that's another topic.

Great series, on No 6 right now and the major attack on Tet during the 'Agreed Truce' by the VC.

Jeeez, the fighting is brutal, and what strikes me is how organised the VC are for what are meant to be a 'guerilla' force.

I cant remember if its covered in the series but they received alot of help from Russian and Chinese 'advisors' (bit like the US pre-US invasion or in Afghan during Russian occupation etc.), as well as alot of arms and money. Once the US pulled out, the hidden support disappeared as well.

From several of the books ive read and from that Cherries website, the advisors seemed to get caught up in the action quite abit on both sides. Its a shame they didnt cover the hill tribes involvement or how Cambodia Americas relationship was during and post war.

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

Depends on if theyd be allowed to invade the North or not. Afghan has similarities in tech (though the NVA had abit more) or maybe Iraq/Syria.

Hearts and Minds only went so far in Vietnam.

Though i guess the question would be; would the US/GB Public accept these losses now?

[tharriso]

Well I think the KD ratio would be even more favourable today with surveillance, drones etc.

Would anything have broken the North's resolve short of genocide?

[marcosgt]

Eric Mc said:

I haven't seen anyone been asked that question. Maybe they will be asked it in the final episode.

They are and they don't seem to believe it was, even those still wearing the uniform of N. Vietnam, interestingly.

Sad, too, to hear that there seems to be little reconciliation between North and South still (Bulldozed ARVN cemeteries, no memorials for S.Vietnam soldiers killed, etc) - That seemed especially tragic to me.

M

[V8 Fettler]

gadgetmac said:

V8 Fettler said:

See British requests for US support during WW1 and WW2. For Afghanistan see attack on World Trade Centre, for Iraq see invasion of Kuwait, for North Korea see threat of communism.

So the WTC was down to the Afghans? The Iraq war (2) was to defend the USA? Communism in North Korea is likewise a threat to the USA?

Using those as yardsticks both Russia and China are much bigger threats to the USA.

Strange that no other countries feel threatened enough by these other smaller countries that they invade them.

For Afghanistan, see where Bin Laden and his mob where based.

Saddam's attack on Kuwait and proven use of chemical weapons sealed his fate, the Second Gulf War was an extension of the First Gulf War.

The US learnt from WW2 that it's better to take the fight to the enemy rather than sit back and wait, hence US forces in Western Europe facing the Soviet threat, also hence intervention in Korea and Vietnam.

[V8 Fettler]

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

The US in 2017 could close the Ho Chi Minh trail within days, the darkness of night in 2017 offers no protection for the NVA or the VC. There would be very little close contact between US soldiers and the enemy.

[andy_s]

gadgetmac said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

Are the Taliban not gradually retaking all of their previous territory? It’s widely acknowledged that its just a matter of time.

I think there comes a point where to win definitively you have to kill everyone in the country, basically.

Vietnam; post-colonial self-determination and independence, resisted by the French, colonial arrogance causes passive resistance and a political movement, this is quashed with ever increasing violent methods, this encourages/justifies upbeat of violence by nationalists who either take a left wing stance through ideology but more cynically because they know they will be supported. Both sides escalate until France is given a bloody nose and the situation becomes politically intolerable back home (also see Algeria, rinse & repeat).

The US then stepped in for the second time, this time opposing those it once armed [sound familiar?] and as both sides escalated the violence again the US threw more munitions at the problem, this killed more people and this caused more people to oppose what the US was doing - they were an invader after all. The more you kill, the more you draw up against you. If Britain was invaded, we'd all be doing the same.

The little snippet about how McNamara's statistical led KPI drove body count and forgot the qualitative side tells you all you need to know; a similar lesson strangely enough learned by OFSTED recently.

[andy_s]

V8 Fettler said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

The US in 2017 could close the Ho Chi Minh trail within days, the darkness of night in 2017 offers no protection for the NVA or the VC. There would be very little close contact between US soldiers and the enemy.

Do you imagine the enemy would use the same tactics in the face of different circumstances ...?

I would imagine the 'enemy' in this case would be far more agile than a traditional military, as is shown again and again. The Ho Chi Minh trail wouldn't exist in the first place and close contact with US soldiers would be at the end of an IED I would imagine. I would also recall the campaign in Afghan, not dissimilar in context but there was never any period of total control of territory, despite denying the night, drones etc.

War of the Flea.

[V8 Fettler]

andy_s said:

V8 Fettler said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

The US in 2017 could close the Ho Chi Minh trail within days, the darkness of night in 2017 offers no protection for the NVA or the VC. There would be very little close contact between US soldiers and the enemy.

Do you imagine the enemy would use the same tactics in the face of different circumstances ...?

I would imagine the 'enemy' in this case would be far more agile than a traditional military, as is shown again and again. The Ho Chi Minh trail wouldn't exist in the first place and close contact with US soldiers would be at the end of an IED I would imagine. I would also recall the campaign in Afghan, not dissimilar in context but there was never any period of total control of territory, despite denying the night, drones etc.

War of the Flea.

tharriso stated "same conflict", therefore the NVA exists. US tech in 2017 means that the NVA would rarely see US forces, very few US soldiers on the ground. In the 1960s, the NVA could hit US aircraft, in 2017 it's unlikely that the NVA would even see US aircraft.

For the US, the difficult issue is the political solution that follows the annihilation of the NVA (see Iraq)

[lemmingjames]

though you are forgetting the Russian and Chinese supplied arms to the NVA which can counter some of the US Tech

[tharriso]

Did USA want non-commie reunification or were they happy with a Korea type thing with vc stay north of dmz?

[anonymous-user]

Eric Mc said:

I don't think anyone who has lived through a war will ever say it was really worth it. But their children or grandchildren might.

I cant agree with that. No doubt people who have lived through a war would prefer to not have had to do that, but they would still say the sacrifices they made was worth it compared to what would have happened had they not done so.

Experiencing a war as brutal as my grandparents did changed them forever, but I believe they would have gone through that again if they had to, when the stakes are so high you have no choice.

That was certainly the case with WW2 where there was a real fight against an evil aggressor. Europe under a Nazi system would be a horrific place.

[Eric Mc]

V8 Fettler said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

The US in 2017 could close the Ho Chi Minh trail within days, the darkness of night in 2017 offers no protection for the NVA or the VC. There would be very little close contact between US soldiers and the enemy.

And there would be no need for Agent Orange either - one of the lunatic ideas tried in the Vietnam War.

[Eric Mc]

jsf said:

I cant agree with that. No doubt people who have lived through a war would prefer to not have had to do that, but they would still say the sacrifices they made was worth it compared to what would have happened had they not done so.

Experiencing a war as brutal as my grandparents did changed them forever, but I believe they would have gone through that again if they had to, when the stakes are so high you have no choice.

That was certainly the case with WW2 where there was a real fight against an evil aggressor. Europe under a Nazi system would be a horrific place.

Hard to say. A lot of it depends on whether you were on the winning side or not.

I think WW2 does stand out as a "worthwhile" war compared to the many that have followed since.

[gadgetmac]

V8 Fettler said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

The US in 2017 could close the Ho Chi Minh trail within days, the darkness of night in 2017 offers no protection for the NVA or the VC. There would be very little close contact between US soldiers and the enemy.

A re-run of the Vietnam war today would involve the Russians and Chinese arming the NVA and VC with todays weapons so the overall result would be the same.

[Elroy Blue]

The US could've ended the North's ability to fight in a matter of months if they'd been allowed to do so.
Allowing attacks on the VNAF airfields, mining the harbours and attacking port installations, full on attacks in NVA military installations in Hanoi.

It wasn't until Linebacker 2 that the gloves came off. The North quickly lost the ability to fight effectively. If it happened 10 years before, the results might have been very different

[Eric Mc]

But ten years earlier was a bit to close too the Cuban Missile Crisis - so the US government was treading very cautiously.

[coppice]

gadgetmac said:

tharriso said:

Imagine same conflict, todays tech. Does it go any differently?

Are the Taliban not gradually retaking all of their previous territory? It’s widely acknowledged that its just a matter of time.

I am sure the US thought their weapons were more than adequate to deal with some little guys on pushbikes wearing black pyjamas. In the same way we thought that our toys would subdue some scary beardy blokes in Toyota pick ups. Asymmetrical warfare creates different rules and yet again (how any times ?) the West just doesn't even begin to understand different cultures and their ways of fighting invaders. Christ, we even deluded ourselves that Libya. Afghanistan , Syria and Iraq were crying out for a western type democracy ...

[V8 Fettler]

lemmingjames said:

though you are forgetting the Russian and Chinese supplied arms to the NVA which can counter some of the US Tech

The goalposts can be moved to an infinite number of positions in most "what-if" scenarios.

Unlikely that Russia or China would supply latest tech weapons to Vietnam in 2017. Look at a map, there's nowhere in Vietnam that cannot be reached by US sub-launched cruise missiles, followed by ship and air-launched cruise missiles, most of the airfields and fixed anti-aircraft defences would be struck by the US in the first few days (if not the first 24 hours), where would the NVA/NVAF(2017) hide their shiny new weapons?