It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vietnam

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   
If the u.s. went back to vietnam with it's expensive high tech toys what would the war out come be in terms of casualties from both sides ? and how long would the war last?




posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I think infrared tech as we have it now would be a big help its hard to hide in a jungle when people can see your body heat . The US tech has become alot better while the tech used by Vietnam has no been so lucky. Those VC were a crafty bunch with all thier tunnels and booby traps though.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   
If we went back now we would use more spec ops since we have more now and they know unconventional warfare also like shadow said helicopters with infrared its like a turkey shoot and we would not hit our own troops like last time if we called air support due to PGM so we would win and our casualties would be nowhere near 5400 maybe like 900-1000.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Well we fought there one so we now know some stuff about jungle warfare. And our F-22s can slip past just about any SAM currently in use. And IR and nightvision can see enemies easily. So if we went back to war it wouldn't be as bad as last time. We know there tactics some of them are taught at west point academy. (Yes WestPoint I know what your thinking)
BTW this thread will most likely be moved to BTS unfourtunatley. Theres that new rule about no VS. style threads.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
You read my mind also CB you seem to have taken a personal vendetta against threads here which are opinion or not really secret just wandering I know its against the rules but isn't it up to the moods to decide that?



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Hey im not trying to be a mod, I'm just placing my bets. Anyhow I'm also angry about that rule. It ruled out some good threads. But anyhow now that we have experience in Vietnam a war with them wouldn't be as bad as the last time. The thing that stands in our way is politics. Politics is why we lost to them in the 70s. And politics still hasn't gone away. The only force that can truly fight guerillas are forces that don't follow the regular rules. An example being Spetsnaz.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If we were to have today's current technlogoy during the Vietnam war, I don't think it would make that much of a real difference, yeah we might be more precise, but will and determination were always on the side of the VC. Home-turf wars are messy, look at how we are faring in Iraq; and we trump them in technology by far but thats not helping us too much. It was a matter of wanting victory bad enough, and obviously we didn't want it enough.



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
No its politics we would win if we had the Vietnam war all over and Iraq we are battling insurgents while trying to win the harts and minds of the people that is why its tough but if we had 500.000 troops in Iraq like we did in Vietnam we could eliminate the threat of insurgency a lot quicker.


[edit on 14-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I feel that most modern western armies are still ill equipped through tactics, training and experiance to fight wars like Vietnam and Iraq's occupation. Why? The US and most other armies are geared towards highly mobile offensive style combat operations. When it comes to urban or non "front line" style combat they get bogged down and start to have problems.

I think a 500,000 man modern military force in Vietnam or Iraq would still have problems winning the war as such. You can throw all the weapons you want at an enemy but if they have the bigger heart or desire to win they will in the end - it may take ten years or 30 like it did in vietnam but in the end they will win.

Iraq will be peaceful when the Iraqi people get what they want, not what the UN or the US wants them to have.

Germany surrendered in the end due to the death of hitler and the success of the allied forces in crushing german forces. I however have wondered what would have happened if hitler had survived? Would a nuclear weapon have been droped on berlin to ensure the end of resistance?



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:34 AM
link   
some countries weren't meant to be invaded. the vietnamese defeated ghengis khan, the chinese, and the americans. while our technology may have advanced, so has the vietnamese.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Like I said the us can win in any urban conflict if we become ruthless and start using tactics like the enemy but we cant cuz were the US military and we don't do that in Iraq if we went house to house or just started destroying whole cities and dressing our soldiers in civilian clothes or killing anyone we wont then we would be more efficient but we are trying to win the harts and minds.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
@Westpoint,

I do hope that you are a tiny minority in your way of thinking in the US... We need your kind of people the fewer the bettter.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by blacman2k6
If the u.s. went back to vietnam with it's expensive high tech toys what would the war out come be in terms of casualties from both sides ? and how long would the war last?


Part of the problem the US faced was its own political leaders. Jhopnson was a disaster as commander in chief. Don't Start me going on Mack The Knife McNamara. He alone was responsable for killing more kick ass planes than anybody (XB-70, the Rapier, the YF-12, and the B-12) with a decisive White House the results may be different. Say what you want about Bush, right or wrong, he knows how to apply force. Taking Vietnam would not be the problem. Dealing with the country after would be.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss
@Westpoint,

I do hope that you are a tiny minority in your way of thinking in the US... We need your kind of people the fewer the bettter.


Like it or not its the only way to win a war with insurgents what do you want to US to do start giving flowers and singing ku-mb-ya to the terrorist sorry but that wont solve...but using brute force where its needed will.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 07:47 AM
link   
"the use of brute force" ? so what do you suggest?
nuke the insurgents? B52 the building thier hideing in?
west point you cant fight insurgents head on, thats not how they fight,they fight dirty underhand tactics. so in turn the military has to start doing that too.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Hello... devil that is what I have been saying if you read my posts but some people reject any type of action against insurgents and what I mean by brute force is not letting the insurgents get off easy like falluja the marines were all ready to go in and clean the city of insurgents but what happens politics get in the way if they had gone in there I bet you we would have gotten al zarqawi and a lot of insurgents but because we didn't they have beheaded people and caused more violence that is what I mean by brute force.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
you dont see ths do you ?
west point there were civies in falluj u cant just go in and slaughter everything, oh and if you say they could just leave then your wrong because the warlords would have stopped them. the truth is distorted there . they see you as an invader not as a liberator.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Vietnam is like a waiting death trap for countries to attack. They have always won against attacks by much more powerful enemies. We really don't have that much weapon technology than we did during vietnam, at least not enough to make a difference for that particular war. We were bombing all over the place in vietnam, firebombing, dropping agent orange to see through the jungle...we had way better technology than them anyway, Navy SEALs and special forces soldiers, lots of troops and large artillery...versus men in pajamas riding bicycles through the jungle. Infrared really would not help much at all. There were no drawn battlelines in vietnam, people were just all over the jungle...we wouldn't know who we were firing upon, not to mention most vietcong were hiding in caves the entire time.

Vietnam would not be won because it is impossible to defeat them with bombs or missiles...troops must be sent in to fight in the jungle, and the problem is, the vietnamese know the jungle MUCH MUCH more than we ever will, and have finely tuned guerrilla tactics. Our soldiers are trained too conventionally to fight such an enemy.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
you dont see ths do you ?
west point there were civies in falluj u cant just go in and slaughter everything, oh and if you say they could just leave then your wrong because the warlords would have stopped them. the truth is distorted there . they see you as an invader not as a liberator.



I don't mean going in there and killing everything that moves I meant going in there and determine who the insurgents are and who are the civilians obviously if someone is shooting at you then well he is not innocent and that is what I mean by politics what you just said liberator Vs. invaders that is politics. And sure some civis are going to get killing and its unfortunate but it would have been for the better good.



posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
west point how can you tell friend from foe in a crowded street and also the warlords lie and say you butcher civies wich if you kill some by acident they thing you done it on prupose.
also the better good you cant determine whats the bette good takeing away a dictator and causeing economical and political and colateral damage or leaving the civies in a state where sure it might be opressed but at least they can walk around with out getting into the middle of a combat zone.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join