4 ms·

>America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. This is ahistorical. The US in no way, sha

by OOD 4y ago

>America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. This is ahistorical. The US in no way, shape, or form when "all out" trying to stop North Vietnam. It was a poor country, but it was heavily armed and resupplied by the USSR and China, including leveraging some of the newest fighter jets, SAMs, etc. the USSR had to offer.

grapeskin 4y ago
They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Vietnam's neighbors were absolutely destroyed by the US. Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? There is no higher level.
- OOD 4y ago
  >They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Categorically false. There were huge swaths of Vietnam that were off limits to bombing. >Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. Yes, with a fraction of the warplanes, airmen, etc. due to advances in technology like strategic bombers and cluster weapons. The overall air efforts are incomparable to what transpired in WWII. >What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? If only there was a term to encapsulate such a concept... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war >There is no higher level. There absolutely is a higher level. Google what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far smaller than what happened to Vietnam. I live not far from there. Seen the range of the damage first hand. The extent of the damage in SE asia is far larger and people are still de-mining the area. And civilian deaths were colossal in Vietnam. Rapes and massacres (that includes by Americans, yes) certainly weren’t just directed at combatants. Just because American deaths were low doesn’t mean the US didn’t go all out on obliterating the country unlike anything they’ve done before. Btw, the fire bombings in Japan were far more disastrous than the nuclear weapons. I suggest you Google them. The nuclear weapons were more of a major spectacle. Vietnams bombings exceed even the Japanese fire bombings, both of which destroyed their entire countries. The napalm and agent orange attacks most certainly weren’t fine tuned either and had massive effects on Vietnamese civilians—lasting even to today. Burning and poisoning the earth will do that.

by OOD 4y ago

grapeskin 4y ago

They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Vietnam's neighbors were absolutely destroyed by the US. Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? There is no higher level.

OOD 4y ago
>They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Categorically false. There were huge swaths of Vietnam that were off limits to bombing. >Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. Yes, with a fraction of the warplanes, airmen, etc. due to advances in technology like strategic bombers and cluster weapons. The overall air efforts are incomparable to what transpired in WWII. >What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? If only there was a term to encapsulate such a concept... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war >There is no higher level. There absolutely is a higher level. Google what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far smaller than what happened to Vietnam. I live not far from there. Seen the range of the damage first hand. The extent of the damage in SE asia is far larger and people are still de-mining the area. And civilian deaths were colossal in Vietnam. Rapes and massacres (that includes by Americans, yes) certainly weren’t just directed at combatants. Just because American deaths were low doesn’t mean the US didn’t go all out on obliterating the country unlike anything they’ve done before. Btw, the fire bombings in Japan were far more disastrous than the nuclear weapons. I suggest you Google them. The nuclear weapons were more of a major spectacle. Vietnams bombings exceed even the Japanese fire bombings, both of which destroyed their entire countries. The napalm and agent orange attacks most certainly weren’t fine tuned either and had massive effects on Vietnamese civilians—lasting even to today. Burning and poisoning the earth will do that.