3 ms·

> maximum military effort There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnames

> maximum military effort There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. Why then did the US not invade North Vietnam? The last major conflict the US took part in was the Korean War. When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate. The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. The bind the US was in was that it couldn’t commit to winning, but it couldn’t lose either. The US tried to outlast an enemy, which was defending its own home turf, which was an awful strategic mistake and lead to millions dead and the trauma associated with the war. Eventually the US government came to its senses and left the situation.

michelpp 5y ago
> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. That didn't happen. That's a militaristic fantasy. What Zinn is describing actually happened. This isn't a debate. > The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't "winning". Luckily that didn't happen either. We lost.
- kstenerud 5y ago
  Reminds me of the old Amiga strategy game Nuclear War, with your leader jumping up and down after the nuclear holocaust yelling "I won! I won!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8
- noslenwerdna 5y ago
  His point is that it, therefore, wasn't a "maximum military effort" as Zinn claimed in his sloppy prose.
afterburner 5y ago
> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. hmmm, but then you say: > When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate. Sounds like a military impediment to me.
- qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
  The point is it invalidates the Zinn quote

michelpp 5y ago

> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. It’s likely the US would have succeeded in that effort, much like it had 20 years earlier with invasions into German and Japanese held territories in WWII. That didn't happen. That's a militaristic fantasy. What Zinn is describing actually happened. This isn't a debate. > The risk of the US putting full effort into the Vietnam was not that the US would lose, it was that US would find its self in a direct armed conflict with other nuclear equipped powers, and this would have set off events leading to a global nuclear war. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't "winning". Luckily that didn't happen either. We lost.

kstenerud 5y ago
Reminds me of the old Amiga strategy game Nuclear War, with your leader jumping up and down after the nuclear holocaust yelling "I won! I won!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgFyxu2Ij8
noslenwerdna 5y ago
His point is that it, therefore, wasn't a "maximum military effort" as Zinn claimed in his sloppy prose.

afterburner 5y ago

> There was nothing, militarily, keeping the US from executing a full scale ground invasion of Hanoi and decapitate the North Vietnamese regime. hmmm, but then you say: > When the US pushed far enough above the 38th parallel, 700k Chinese troops entered the country and put the war into a stalemate. Sounds like a military impediment to me.

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
The point is it invalidates the Zinn quote