Poll: Was Vietnam 'winable'?
Yes
No
Maybe
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Vietnam: Was it 'winable'?
#7
(12-28-2019, 06:07 PM)Catmandude123 Wrote: The war was definitely winnable. The American objective was not to win but to perpetuate the war machine. A lot of young men gave their lives in a war the politicians were not committed to win.  One Nagasaki sized nuke on Hanoi would have ended the war. The threat of escalation was real but the question was is it winnable. Sometimes you lose more when you win than when you lose.

A nuke would have done nothing but escalate things to mutually assured destruction during the cold war. You nor I would likely be around to debate these things had they dropped a nuke on Hanoi. Russia nor China would have stood for such nonsense nor should they have.
In the immortal words of my old man, "Wait'll you get to be my age!"

Chicago sounds rough to the maker of verse, but the one comfort we have is Cincinnati sounds worse. ~Oliver Wendal Holmes Sr.


[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote





Messages In This Thread
Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Bengalzona - 12-21-2019, 01:53 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - fredtoast - 12-23-2019, 11:47 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - sandwedge - 12-24-2019, 01:53 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 12-28-2019, 04:38 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - Synric - 12-28-2019, 05:29 PM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 12-31-2019, 02:21 AM
RE: Vietnam: Was it 'winable'? - grampahol - 01-15-2020, 03:31 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)