If the US wins the Vietnam War...

[MKSheppard]

The only contention was that your argument that the US could had easily decleared all those targets on the board immediately is an argument from hindsight. We know now that the Chinese/Soviets wouldn't had responded, however, the fears that this would escalate was a valid one in the 60s when the bombing campaign was first started.

Wrong. The bombing campaign was started by Robert S. McNamara as a way of managing the Vietnam War via "Action-Reaction" theory. He essentially ran it for most of the war with LBJ, trying to "manage" things to show the leaders of North Vietnam american "resolve" via attack, stop attack, attack more. As we all know, A-R is a utter fraud.

It's not for nothing that major US Military leaders, such as LeMay, agitated for an unlimited war right from the start.

"In Japan we dropped 502,000 tons and we won the war. In Vietnam we dropped 6,162,000 tons of bombs and we lost the war. The difference was that McNamara chose the targets in Vietnam and I chose the targets in Japan."

Similarly, expanding the bombing campaign earlier than its historical date would had been relatively pointless because at that point in the war, the NLF didn't rely heavily on NVA supplies or manpower. Lastly, on its own, the bombing campaign couldn't end the war by taking North Vietnam out of the equation as it historically endured a long and destructive campaign.

Not really. North Vietnam's infrastructure was largely untouched until Linebacker I and II. All that bomb tonnage we dropped was on empty spots of trees that we thought held truck depots.

[FOG3]

And the Iraqi sanctions show exactly how difficult it is to sustain a blockade politically over a decade EVEN when it was highly effective with literally no losses whatsoever.

What are you getting at? The Oil for Food scandal? So you're comparing people bending things and making up arguments to get money and defend their oil contracts too... I'm sorry what does North Vietnam have that's even vaguely equivalent to oil?

NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT. I DID NOT CLAIM THE US COULD NOT CONDUCT A SUCCESSFUL INTERDICTION CAMPAIGN!
...
To repeat:
The US bombing campaign was a mistake because of they didn't target Soviet ships/trains and other targets early on because of political constraints that were placed on it.

Except that shutting down the sea lanes didn't involve bombing ships, and trains can't run without tracks to run on. You seem to not realize you are arguing for a much more resource intensive approach then is or was necessary to shutdown the flow of supplies. Kind of messes up your argument because it relies so heavily on this wasteful and pointless direct targetting of inidividual cargo haulers business.

Similarly, expanding the bombing campaign earlier than its historical date would had been relatively pointless because at that point in the war, the NLF didn't rely heavily on NVA supplies or manpower. Lastly, on its own, the bombing campaign couldn't end the war by taking North Vietnam out of the equation as it historically endured a long and destructive campaign.

You seem to be the only one ignoring the ARVN, and the ability to supply them verse inability of the Communists to supply their proxies.

[K. A. Pital]

You seem to be the only one ignoring the ARVN

The ARVN is a rather badly suited force even for COIN operations... especially the ARVN as it was in the start of the war (and we're talking about the US going for blowing up supply routes to North Vietnam from the get go, right?).

[PainRack]

What are you getting at? The Oil for Food scandal? So you're comparing people bending things and making up arguments to get money and defend their oil contracts too... I'm sorry what does North Vietnam have that's even vaguely equivalent to oil?

I was referring to the backlash against US military action by both domestic and international forces in attempting to sustain the sanction.

Except that shutting down the sea lanes didn't involve bombing ships, and trains can't run without tracks to run on. You seem to not realize you are arguing for a much more resource intensive approach then is or was necessary to shutdown the flow of supplies. Kind of messes up your argument because it relies so heavily on this wasteful and pointless direct targetting of inidividual cargo haulers business.

DUDE! My comments was that the US bombing campaign screwed up because the planners forced them NOT to target the vital components of Vietnamese logistics on top of other factors. I elaborated on this often enough.

Wrong. The bombing campaign was started by Robert S. McNamara as a way of managing the Vietnam War via "Action-Reaction" theory. He essentially ran it for most of the war with LBJ, trying to "manage" things to show the leaders of North Vietnam american "resolve" via attack, stop attack, attack more. As we all know, A-R is a utter fraud.

It's not for nothing that major US Military leaders, such as LeMay, agitated for an unlimited war right from the start.

Which changes the fact that the US bombing campaign screwed up because it screwed up targeting lists.........

Not really. North Vietnam's infrastructure was largely untouched until Linebacker I and II. All that bomb tonnage we dropped was on empty spots of trees that we thought held truck depots.

And did it cause North Vietnam to drop out of the war?

[CmdrWilkens]

This thread asks two questions:

1) With what policies, strategies, and tactics may the US win the Vietnam War? A victory is defined as a South Vietnam that remains independent of North Vietnam; non-intervention is not an option, although indirect intervention, e.g., by mercenaries or proxies like Taiwanese military units, may substitute for the deployment of US military units.

The US refuses French pressure for acknowledgement of French rights in Indo-China. Instead they agree to recognize Minh's group as the legitimate successor of a new (non-communist or possibly semi-socialist) state of Vietnam. Following the San Francisco and Tehran declarations abotu self determination the Viet Minh basically banked on this and were negotiating based on this. If the US agrees to back its principals over the French insistnece of a need to retain their colonial possesion (admittedly a tough sell in the earliest days of NATO) then we have a completely new situation. As early as late 1944 and early 1945 the Viet Minh were actively negotiating with US representatives for US recognition of them as an independent nation. While, amongst other SE Asian nations, Korea would be partially freed by Russian forces and thus subject to Soviet/Chinese influence after the Communist victory and Thailand/Burma were freed by British and US forces, Vietnam was essentially self-liberated by the Viet Minh from Japanese Occupation. Having previously been within the Chinese sphere of influence and having fought a war of liberation there is good reason to believe the Viet Minh would not have wanted to find themselves within the Chinese sphere again. Thus it was entirely possible that deft US manuevering would have brought the nation into the US sphere (in part also because at this point the Chinese Communists were still holed up in Manchuria and the Kuomintang was a partially owned subsidary of the US).

2) How will a US victory and the presence of an independent South Vietnam change the course of history?

Well it would be Vietnam and it would probably more closely resembled Thailand than anything else. Given an early US intevention to allow for nationhood we could plausibly see them rise in the manner that China has in the last two decades as a supplier of cheap labor for overseas textiles and consumer goods. Moreover with yet another nation within the US sphere in SE Asia presenting a threat to the southern flank of China the shape of the Korean War could change in character as no planner in China could escape the fact that an offensive over the Yalu opened them to reprisal from the south. This may have led to an attempt at a negotiated settlement of the Korean War that would have led to a united Korea but that is far more speculatively. More likely the lack of a flashpoint in SE Asia to disrupt US infleunce means that attention would be paid to smaller trouble spots like the Middle East AND greater attention to domestic initiatives.

I don't think it can be stressed enough that what doomed Johnson's Great Society program was the ruinous expense of Vietnam. If you take that away then we are left with yet another major entitlement prgoram credited to the democrats, the continuing rise of the moderate/progressive left and the extreme left likely being stillborn without a cause celebre' to rally around. The Republican's lacking anything aside from Goldwater's "small government" mentality would be faced with yet another enourmously popular enitlement program that benefits the masses and might even be enough to allow Democrats to retain their electoral majorities even after the Dixie-crats begin deserting. This may lead to the death of Goldwater/Reganism and, possibly, the rise of a competing TR/Rockefeller style Republican party that starts to resemble a wierd hybrid of current Republican moderates and blue dog democrats. The religious right would be left in an electroal wasteland and would continue to be a fringe movement derided for things like the disaster that was prohibition.