6 ms·

So protestors caused USA to lose the war, as Nixon complained?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dguaraglia 9y ago
So, let me get this straight: you'd rather have nuclear weapons become a normal weapon of war, as opposed to a deterrent, than have people complain about a war? Wow.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Certainly a nuclear strike would have been a quicker ending with less casualties, no?
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    This "quicker ending" narrative justifies unlimited escalation of violence.
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    If China and the USSR didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the Vietnam War? Perhaps. If it didn't cause the NVA to completely dissipate into full on guerrilla warfare? Sure.
  - georgebarnett 9y ago
    Perhaps initially, however their use would be normalised and so ultimately casualties would likely be higher as more were used. Also radiation pollution would be the gift that keeps killing.
- ChristianGeek 9y ago
  He's saying exactly the same thing that was, and still is, used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. He is not saying anything about using them as normal weapons of war. Whether or not you consider this a reasonable argument is up to you.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    >that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. Exactly, Firebombings in Japan resulted in about twice as many human casualties than with Little Man and Fat Boy combined. Before the 1st bomb the United States called for the unconditional surrender or "face prompt and utter destruction". Japan's response was their intent to fight on to the bitter end. After the first bomb Truman called for Japan's surrender, or "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." To no avail, and after the second bomb was detonated Emperor Hirohito called for accepting the terms of the allies, but even the surrender, in hindsight, was probably lucky as there was a failed coup, which if successful would have lead to the continued and ongoing armed conflict.
    - sedachv 9y ago
      That is a Cold War propaganda tale that is not entirely accurate. The main motivation for the use of the atomic bombs by the US was as a show of force warning to the Soviet Union. The bombings were planned to coincide with the start of the Manchurian Operation (Soviet declaration of war against Japan). The main motivation for the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war, and the Japanese decision to surrender would have been made without the atomic bombing. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic...
      - will_brown 9y ago
        That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate better terms, hopeful that consistent with the 5 year neutrality agreement with the Soviets the Soviets would assist in negotiations with the US. Short of obtaining the more desirable terms Japan seemed to be more than willing to accept the loses, in fact their leaders are quoted as saying the loses would only strengthen and unify the Country further. You can claim Japan was going to surrender, but they were not, the Soviet invasion was helpful in the sense that it made clear the Soviets were not going to assist in negotiations, so there was no more reason for a holdout on diplomatic terms, but as a result Japan was beholden to the military option over unconditional surrender, until the 2nd bomb, and again even then surrender may not have occurred if the coup was successful against the Emperor. Finally, if it were really the Soviet invasion, you think the Emperor would have been more inclined to acknowledge them, rather in his surrender speech he mentions only one concern, specifically: "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
- Joeboy 9y ago
  At the time of writing the comment you're replying to says this: > So protestors caused USA to lose the war, as Nixon complained? Which doesn't seem to me to contain the meaning you're inferring at all.
guildwriter 9y ago
In a sense yes actually. Take the Tet Offensive for example. From a purely military perspective it was a total disaster for the NVA. Casualties were incredibly in the favor of the SV and US forces for a fairly small amount of territory gained. What the NVA realized correctly though was the effect that the Tet Offensive would have on an already questioning American public. The media impact of the Tet Offensive along with the request for another 200k recruits did a major blow to the American public who really began to lose faith with the war. The NVA understood that they didn't have to beat the US Army, they just had to make the American public unwilling to fight. Note that this isn't an argument that the War was worth fighting or not. Simply that protesters can and do have an effect on how the enemy fights and can assist the enemy intentionally or unintentionally. War in the modern era is no longer just calculated in how it affects the battlefield at hand, but also the media landscape. That was one of the major lessons of the Vietnam War.
- bb611 9y ago
  The general consensus is that the US could not win the war in Vietnam, because the vast majority of South Vietnamese were not on board: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwinnable.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwin... I would agree that the major lesson the US military learned was "manage public opinion", but that wasn't the actual lesson on offer, which was that you can't win a country without winning over its people, and that was learned all over again in Iraq between 2003-2008.
  - guildwriter 9y ago
    Your article doesn't support your claim: > "Despite its ally’s fundamental weakness, the United States might possibly still have won, of course, had it been willing to fully mobilize its own national power. But that would have required raising taxes, calling up the Reserves and other sacrifices that President Lyndon Johnson shrank from asking the American people to make." ... "But Johnson was the most astute politician to sit in the White House during the 20th century, and he knew that he faced a paradox. As long as the war in Vietnam didn’t demand too much of them and they believed that victory was just around the corner, most Americans would support it. But if Johnson admitted publicly that South Vietnam could not survive without a full commitment by the United States, he knew that support would crumble." Yes the SV government was autocratic, corrupt, incompetent, and this made it harder for the SV to get on board. But saying that's the majority reason is frankly incorrect. The full power of the US military would have been enough to guarantee victory or stalemate. Further counterpoint. See the Korean War. Deeply unpopular at home. Most people didn't even know where Korea even was or fully understand why we were fighting. It was one of the major reasons why Truman's approval numbers were so low. S. Korean government at the time under Rhee was corrupt as all hell and undemocratic. In fact most of S Korea's history is undemocratic. S Korean Army units a total disaster for the most part. Yet S Korea still stands independent largely because we never faltered in giving them the military support they needed. Also Iraq in 2003-2008 was less about winning over the people of Iraq and a lot more to do with other issues such as the refusal to utilize former Ba'ath party members and generals in the formation of the new government. Arguably the worst screw up was the unilateral exit of the US from Iraq under Obama which lead to the chaos we have to deal with now.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

So, let me get this straight: you'd rather have nuclear weapons become a normal weapon of war, as opposed to a deterrent, than have people complain about a war? Wow.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Certainly a nuclear strike would have been a quicker ending with less casualties, no?
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  This "quicker ending" narrative justifies unlimited escalation of violence.
- guildwriter 9y ago
  If China and the USSR didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the Vietnam War? Perhaps. If it didn't cause the NVA to completely dissipate into full on guerrilla warfare? Sure.
- georgebarnett 9y ago
  Perhaps initially, however their use would be normalised and so ultimately casualties would likely be higher as more were used. Also radiation pollution would be the gift that keeps killing.
ChristianGeek 9y ago
He's saying exactly the same thing that was, and still is, used in defense of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. He is not saying anything about using them as normal weapons of war. Whether or not you consider this a reasonable argument is up to you.
- will_brown 9y ago
  >that the human loss in ending the war quickly was far less than it would have been in continuing it. Exactly, Firebombings in Japan resulted in about twice as many human casualties than with Little Man and Fat Boy combined. Before the 1st bomb the United States called for the unconditional surrender or "face prompt and utter destruction". Japan's response was their intent to fight on to the bitter end. After the first bomb Truman called for Japan's surrender, or "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." To no avail, and after the second bomb was detonated Emperor Hirohito called for accepting the terms of the allies, but even the surrender, in hindsight, was probably lucky as there was a failed coup, which if successful would have lead to the continued and ongoing armed conflict.
  - sedachv 9y ago
    That is a Cold War propaganda tale that is not entirely accurate. The main motivation for the use of the atomic bombs by the US was as a show of force warning to the Soviet Union. The bombings were planned to coincide with the start of the Manchurian Operation (Soviet declaration of war against Japan). The main motivation for the Japanese surrender was the Soviet declaration of war, and the Japanese decision to surrender would have been made without the atomic bombing. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-guide-unnecessary/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic...
    - will_brown 9y ago
      That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate better terms, hopeful that consistent with the 5 year neutrality agreement with the Soviets the Soviets would assist in negotiations with the US. Short of obtaining the more desirable terms Japan seemed to be more than willing to accept the loses, in fact their leaders are quoted as saying the loses would only strengthen and unify the Country further. You can claim Japan was going to surrender, but they were not, the Soviet invasion was helpful in the sense that it made clear the Soviets were not going to assist in negotiations, so there was no more reason for a holdout on diplomatic terms, but as a result Japan was beholden to the military option over unconditional surrender, until the 2nd bomb, and again even then surrender may not have occurred if the coup was successful against the Emperor. Finally, if it were really the Soviet invasion, you think the Emperor would have been more inclined to acknowledge them, rather in his surrender speech he mentions only one concern, specifically: "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
Joeboy 9y ago
At the time of writing the comment you're replying to says this: > So protestors caused USA to lose the war, as Nixon complained? Which doesn't seem to me to contain the meaning you're inferring at all.

guildwriter 9y ago

In a sense yes actually. Take the Tet Offensive for example. From a purely military perspective it was a total disaster for the NVA. Casualties were incredibly in the favor of the SV and US forces for a fairly small amount of territory gained. What the NVA realized correctly though was the effect that the Tet Offensive would have on an already questioning American public. The media impact of the Tet Offensive along with the request for another 200k recruits did a major blow to the American public who really began to lose faith with the war. The NVA understood that they didn't have to beat the US Army, they just had to make the American public unwilling to fight. Note that this isn't an argument that the War was worth fighting or not. Simply that protesters can and do have an effect on how the enemy fights and can assist the enemy intentionally or unintentionally. War in the modern era is no longer just calculated in how it affects the battlefield at hand, but also the media landscape. That was one of the major lessons of the Vietnam War.

bb611 9y ago
The general consensus is that the US could not win the war in Vietnam, because the vast majority of South Vietnamese were not on board: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwinnable.html?mcubz=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwin... I would agree that the major lesson the US military learned was "manage public opinion", but that wasn't the actual lesson on offer, which was that you can't win a country without winning over its people, and that was learned all over again in Iraq between 2003-2008.
- guildwriter 9y ago
  Your article doesn't support your claim: > "Despite its ally’s fundamental weakness, the United States might possibly still have won, of course, had it been willing to fully mobilize its own national power. But that would have required raising taxes, calling up the Reserves and other sacrifices that President Lyndon Johnson shrank from asking the American people to make." ... "But Johnson was the most astute politician to sit in the White House during the 20th century, and he knew that he faced a paradox. As long as the war in Vietnam didn’t demand too much of them and they believed that victory was just around the corner, most Americans would support it. But if Johnson admitted publicly that South Vietnam could not survive without a full commitment by the United States, he knew that support would crumble." Yes the SV government was autocratic, corrupt, incompetent, and this made it harder for the SV to get on board. But saying that's the majority reason is frankly incorrect. The full power of the US military would have been enough to guarantee victory or stalemate. Further counterpoint. See the Korean War. Deeply unpopular at home. Most people didn't even know where Korea even was or fully understand why we were fighting. It was one of the major reasons why Truman's approval numbers were so low. S. Korean government at the time under Rhee was corrupt as all hell and undemocratic. In fact most of S Korea's history is undemocratic. S Korean Army units a total disaster for the most part. Yet S Korea still stands independent largely because we never faltered in giving them the military support they needed. Also Iraq in 2003-2008 was less about winning over the people of Iraq and a lot more to do with other issues such as the refusal to utilize former Ba'ath party members and generals in the formation of the new government. Arguably the worst screw up was the unilateral exit of the US from Iraq under Obama which lead to the chaos we have to deal with now.