re: do you think it's possible to win a war without putting boots on the ground

So then why did we leave under fire? Genuine question. I'm not trying to be a dick. My dad was over there in 69. He has nothing good to say about it overall.

quote:

---

So then why did we leave under fire? Genuine question. I'm not trying to be a dick. My dad was over there in 69. He has nothing good to say about it overall.

---

Well, the first thing you need to learn is that the whole thing was political, plain and simple. We had the means to end that war much earlier had we done things like Darth said much earlier and also: mined Haiphong Harbor at the beginning; stopped the BS about not firing on SAM sites until targeted; taking out the airfields; gone into NV; and the list goes on and on...

But the politicians played with our military. Just like a certain one is doing now...

quote:

---

So then why did we leave under fire? Genuine question. I'm not trying to be a dick. My dad was over there in 69. He has nothing good to say about it overall

---

OK, let me clarify the timeline for you. The Vietnam War as we know it ended in 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. What you're talking about by "leaving under fire" is when we excavated our embassy in 1975 after the North started a whole new war. It goes like this...

1973: the US, South Vietnam, and North Vietnam sign the Paris Peace accords ending the Vietnam War. We had already withdrawn our ground forces before this and the South had fought virtually alone on the ground since 1972. In fact, the last major offensive from the North, the "Easter Offensive" in 1972 saw the ARVN shoulder the ground fighting alone with American air support. The South repulsed the offensive and this, along with our bombing the north, helped convince the North they had to end the war, which they did in January 1973.

1973-1975: All US forces are out of South Vietnam. We are still treaty bound to provide military supplies and support to them. However, Congress which was controlled by liberal Democrats votes to cut off all military aid to South Vietnam. The removal of all military aid to South Vietnam resulted in the ARVN becoming all but helpless between 73 & 75.

As for North Vietnam, their benefactors in the USSR instead of cutting them off, flooded North Vietnam with fresh equipment and supplies. So while the North was totally exhausted and the NVA was a spent force in 1973, by the end of 1974 they were fully rearmed, rebuilt, and once again ready for war.

1974-1975: seeing that the South was now no longer ready for war, due to being cut off from US aid thanks to Congress, the North starts probing the South's defense in December 1974. In Feb 1975 the North launches their full offensive. By the end of April 1975, it's over. Sigon has fallen, we've evacuated our embassy (that's the leaving under fire you're think about) and the South surrenders unconditionally.

quote:

---

They did give up

---

So how does the fact that 2.5 years later, in violation of Article 9 of the Peace Accords, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam achieved it's goal by taking over the entire territory as a communist regime indicate that they "gave up"? I mean Saigon is Ho Chi Minh City, for God's sake.

ETA: I posted before seeing your timeline reply. I'd disagree with your assessment of post-73 being "a whole new war" especially in the eyes of the North.

Yes, without a doubt. I don't think people would support the draconian measures required for that to happen though.

quote:

---

Darth_Vader

---

Boom. Well said, sir.

quote:

---

Is there a consensus on what Japan would have done if we dropped the bombs right after Pearl Harbor?

---

Impossible to do, anyway. We didn't have the bomb yet, didn't have a plane that could carry it, and didn't have a plane that could fly that far. That's one of the main reasons why all of those little islands in the pacific were important, because they had airfields.