9 ms·

Which war did the US win post WW2? Afaict they all ended in stalemates and eventual retreat (Korea,Iraq,Vietnam,Afghanistan,..)

delecti 3y ago
That's mostly because we keep going into situations with political goals, and military means (when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail). If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age. Though in 20 years, the young adults there would probably provoke us into another dumb situation like the above.
- Beijinger 3y ago
  "with political goals, and military means" True "If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age." Putin probably thought the same about Ukraine. Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea and Vietnam. And based on Clausewitz: "War is politics by other means" And our politics changed....
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    Military objectives were achieved in Korea and Vietnam in the sense that we killed lots of people. What we learned (and really, already knew from WW2, where we very intentionally did not invade the Japanese home islands) is that killing lots of people on an enemy's home soil just turns a lot more people against you.
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    > "If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age." > Putin probably thought the same about Ukraine. I doubt, as Ukraine is far from being a small country. It is the second largest European country (counting Russia as an European country, as is common in geography). (he most likely had other miscalculations leading to the current situation)
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea Hard disagree on Korea. South Korea is a hell of an ally, very inconvenient for the PRC.
    - DoughnutHole 3y ago
      Just because the US got a useful ally in the long run doesn’t mean that the military objective was met. That wasn’t the objective of the war. The objective of the US once they pushed back the initial invasion in the Korean War was to destroy the DPRK, force communism out of Korea, and unify the country. They failed. The war became a stalemate once China got directly involved. If Vietnam becomes a stalwart ally of the US over the next 20 years that won’t mean the Vietnam War was a success just because the US ended up eventually having a useful interest in the region.
      - l33t7332273 3y ago
        > That wasn’t the objective of the war The objective of the war was to prevent the spread of communism. That goal was achieved.
mnau 3y ago
First gulf war would qualify.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  I think that’s more like quitting while you’re ahead
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    And we quit Vietnam while behind.
KMag 3y ago
I would argue both Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan were cases of losing the peace in equal measure to easily winning the war.
nostrademons 3y ago
This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant power, with the only industrial base that wasn't destroyed, and then enjoyed the economic fruits of rebuilding a country that had been bombed back into the stone age and then capitulated. Additionally, Germany and Japan expected that U.S. occupation would be absolutely terrible, that we would be tyrants in the same way that their militaristic governments of the time were, and so when it turned out we just wanted to make money, that was a huge relief to them. With all the post-WW2 wars, we've gone in as a dominant power, as the aggressor, to a country that is far smaller and less developed. In terms of casualties, they've been even more lopsided victories than WW2. The second Iraq war killed about half a million Iraqis and displaced about 1.8M, vs. < 1000 Americans killed, for a kill ratio of ~500:1. But what does it even mean to achieve victory here? We go in as a bully and ruin our world reputation. The average American sees zero benefit from killing Iraqis; it just means higher oil prices, larger government debt, more inflation, reduced civil liberties, and a lack of focus on domestic problems (...which may be the point). Defense contractors make out like a bandit, and the executive branch gets to consolidate power (...which, again, may be the point), but there isn't room to grow the way there was after WW2.
- scotty79 3y ago
  I don't think any other country considers any of those cases to be wins ... Perhaps maybe wars in Iraq or Jugoslavia. I think eventual loss in Ukraine will be last nail in the coffin of US military reputation.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    The US isn’t fighting in Ukraine so that’d be a strange result. Especially since our surplus weapons with novice operators have laid waste to the invasion force of what was considered to be the 2nd or 3rd strongest army on the planet..
beambot 3y ago
Technically, the US hasn't fought any wars since WWII -- as a declaration of war is a Congressional function. All of the other things people think of or refer to wars were technically "conflicts".
- bejk22 3y ago
  I'm unsure the US can unilaterally decide if it's in a war or not. Do the opposite side consider it a war? Do the international community consider it a war? Semantic games internal to a single side do not matter much.
  - skygazer 3y ago
    Until an outside observer collapses the wave function, it’s a Schrodinger’s conflict? A Tolstoy Superposition (of War and Peace)?
- tshaddox 3y ago
  That’s not even correct on a technicality, because you switch mid-sentence from discussing “war” to discussing “declaration of war.” A declaration of war is plainly different from a war. Declarations of war are frequently made well after a war has begun or well before any fighting takes place. And as you state, many wars are fought without any declaration of war.
  - solardev 3y ago
    [flagged]
- mongol 3y ago
  You are using the word technically wrong. Whether a country is at war or not is not a technical matter, it is dependent on the facts on the ground. A war is an intense armed conflict, usually between states. Just as the US did not declare war after WWII, they have not had problems calling Russia's invasion of Ukraine a war, despite Russian statements it is just a special military operation. We all know it is a war, just like that the US has been involved in multiple wars after WWII.
anjel 3y ago
Granada and Panama.
sbierwagen 3y ago
Gulf War 1. Invasion of Panama. The 1994 invasion of Haiti, debatably. The Kosovo war, kinda.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Small correction: it was Gulf War 2, the first one was between Iran and Iraq (the US allied with Sadam back then, different story).
  - sbierwagen 3y ago
    I mean, if the numbering system has to include every war ever fought in Mesopotamia, it would be more like Gulf War 200. You can't kick a rock in Iraq without hitting a cuneiform tablet describing a battle fought in 3500BC.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
l33t7332273 3y ago
Are you implying the US post WW2 would lose a war of aggression to any small country? Indeed, I’d posit USA easily wins a war of aggression against any non-top 5 country(by military spending or what have you).

delecti 3y ago

That's mostly because we keep going into situations with political goals, and military means (when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail). If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age. Though in 20 years, the young adults there would probably provoke us into another dumb situation like the above.

Beijinger 3y ago
"with political goals, and military means" True "If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age." Putin probably thought the same about Ukraine. Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea and Vietnam. And based on Clausewitz: "War is politics by other means" And our politics changed....
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Military objectives were achieved in Korea and Vietnam in the sense that we killed lots of people. What we learned (and really, already knew from WW2, where we very intentionally did not invade the Japanese home islands) is that killing lots of people on an enemy's home soil just turns a lot more people against you.
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  > "If a small country declared war on us, we could easily bomb them back into the iron age." > Putin probably thought the same about Ukraine. I doubt, as Ukraine is far from being a small country. It is the second largest European country (counting Russia as an European country, as is common in geography). (he most likely had other miscalculations leading to the current situation)
- riversflow 3y ago
  > Military objectives were achieved in Afghanistan, but not in Korea Hard disagree on Korea. South Korea is a hell of an ally, very inconvenient for the PRC.
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    Just because the US got a useful ally in the long run doesn’t mean that the military objective was met. That wasn’t the objective of the war. The objective of the US once they pushed back the initial invasion in the Korean War was to destroy the DPRK, force communism out of Korea, and unify the country. They failed. The war became a stalemate once China got directly involved. If Vietnam becomes a stalwart ally of the US over the next 20 years that won’t mean the Vietnam War was a success just because the US ended up eventually having a useful interest in the region.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      > That wasn’t the objective of the war The objective of the war was to prevent the spread of communism. That goal was achieved.

mnau 3y ago

First gulf war would qualify.

jonplackett 3y ago
I think that’s more like quitting while you’re ahead
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  And we quit Vietnam while behind.

KMag 3y ago

I would argue both Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan were cases of losing the peace in equal measure to easily winning the war.

nostrademons 3y ago

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant power, with the only industrial base that wasn't destroyed, and then enjoyed the economic fruits of rebuilding a country that had been bombed back into the stone age and then capitulated. Additionally, Germany and Japan expected that U.S. occupation would be absolutely terrible, that we would be tyrants in the same way that their militaristic governments of the time were, and so when it turned out we just wanted to make money, that was a huge relief to them. With all the post-WW2 wars, we've gone in as a dominant power, as the aggressor, to a country that is far smaller and less developed. In terms of casualties, they've been even more lopsided victories than WW2. The second Iraq war killed about half a million Iraqis and displaced about 1.8M, vs. < 1000 Americans killed, for a kill ratio of ~500:1. But what does it even mean to achieve victory here? We go in as a bully and ruin our world reputation. The average American sees zero benefit from killing Iraqis; it just means higher oil prices, larger government debt, more inflation, reduced civil liberties, and a lack of focus on domestic problems (...which may be the point). Defense contractors make out like a bandit, and the executive branch gets to consolidate power (...which, again, may be the point), but there isn't room to grow the way there was after WW2.

scotty79 3y ago
I don't think any other country considers any of those cases to be wins ... Perhaps maybe wars in Iraq or Jugoslavia. I think eventual loss in Ukraine will be last nail in the coffin of US military reputation.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  The US isn’t fighting in Ukraine so that’d be a strange result. Especially since our surplus weapons with novice operators have laid waste to the invasion force of what was considered to be the 2nd or 3rd strongest army on the planet..

beambot 3y ago

Technically, the US hasn't fought any wars since WWII -- as a declaration of war is a Congressional function. All of the other things people think of or refer to wars were technically "conflicts".

bejk22 3y ago
I'm unsure the US can unilaterally decide if it's in a war or not. Do the opposite side consider it a war? Do the international community consider it a war? Semantic games internal to a single side do not matter much.
- skygazer 3y ago
  Until an outside observer collapses the wave function, it’s a Schrodinger’s conflict? A Tolstoy Superposition (of War and Peace)?
tshaddox 3y ago
That’s not even correct on a technicality, because you switch mid-sentence from discussing “war” to discussing “declaration of war.” A declaration of war is plainly different from a war. Declarations of war are frequently made well after a war has begun or well before any fighting takes place. And as you state, many wars are fought without any declaration of war.
- solardev 3y ago
  [flagged]
mongol 3y ago
You are using the word technically wrong. Whether a country is at war or not is not a technical matter, it is dependent on the facts on the ground. A war is an intense armed conflict, usually between states. Just as the US did not declare war after WWII, they have not had problems calling Russia's invasion of Ukraine a war, despite Russian statements it is just a special military operation. We all know it is a war, just like that the US has been involved in multiple wars after WWII.

anjel 3y ago

Granada and Panama.

sbierwagen 3y ago

Gulf War 1. Invasion of Panama. The 1994 invasion of Haiti, debatably. The Kosovo war, kinda.

hef19898 3y ago
Small correction: it was Gulf War 2, the first one was between Iran and Iraq (the US allied with Sadam back then, different story).
- sbierwagen 3y ago
  I mean, if the numbering system has to include every war ever fought in Mesopotamia, it would be more like Gulf War 200. You can't kick a rock in Iraq without hitting a cuneiform tablet describing a battle fought in 3500BC.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

l33t7332273 3y ago

Are you implying the US post WW2 would lose a war of aggression to any small country? Indeed, I’d posit USA easily wins a war of aggression against any non-top 5 country(by military spending or what have you).