What would it have taken for America to win the Vietnam war?

>>2478065
>Support a better regime
>Fight in the south like a counter-insurgency, not a conventional war
>Focus more on grooming a competent and dedicated force to take over once you leave

OR

Just not get involved in the first place. Simple fact is that the US was holding up a regime that wasn't really sustainable.

The South Vietnam government was rotten to the core and would have been toppled with anything less than indefinite military occupation by the US propping it up.

Dr. Manhattan

>>2478065
Complete imperialism instead of attempting to hold up a regime.

Instead of propping up one government and dealing with being unable to discern, they could've taken everything.

>>2478074
Basically these, with the caveat that the US tried to do all of these.

>>2478065
Invade North Vietnam during 1968, when China was at the height of the Cultural Revolution and wouldn't have intervened.

Suppress the media.
Crush all anti-war protests.
Play jingoistic propaganda 24/7.
Allow American troops to use any means necessary to win, even at the cost of innocent lives and a tarnished image across the globe

I'm serious.

That is the only way to actually win a war.

This hands-off, anemic, regime-change crap is the most flaccid and dispassionate way to you can ever fight a war.

The US wasn't serious about winning Vietnam. If they thought they were fighting the war the right way, then they are fucking delusional.

War isn't about having the biggest guns and largest reserves of troops. You have to psyche up your entire population, culture, and media to go all gung-ho and bloodthirsty.

If your military supports the war, but your culture, media, academia, and businesses are against it, you will lose. Period.

>>2478227
So why did the soviets lose in Afghanistan then?

>>2478065
Public support of vicious tactics and acceptable combat losses.

The same thing that plagues us today.

>>2478232
By the late 70s and early 80s I highly doubt many people were patriotic about the Soviet cause

>>2478227
>Allow American troops to use any means necessary to win, even at the cost of innocent lives and a tarnished image across the globe

Okay, but what about the cost in American lives? These guys weren't exactly pushovers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War#United_States_aircraft

Nuke it. The only good commie is a dead commie

>>2478227
This never works.

File: le day of retribution face.jpg (163KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x399px

>>2478065
>All these bullshit answers.
Invade North Vietnam.
Prepare for Korean War 2.0: It Ain't Me edition.

>>2478232
You must not know much about the political climate of the Soviet Union in the 80s.

The USSR was already falling apart because of increased political representation for non-Russian states, growing cynicism for the bureaucratic elite, greater transparency in politics, and an increasingly feeble economy that simply couldn't compare with the west.

The Soviet-Afghan War had less to do with continuing the Soviet tradition of spreading the Glorious Revolution and more to do with the Soviet military making one last desperate (albeit feeble) attempt at proving their relevance on a global stage.

Trust me. No real Soviet citizen would have given a flying fuck about the goings-on in Afghanistan, aka the biggest shithole on earth and the place dubbed 'Graveyard of Empires'.

Also consider that the Soviet Union, at the end of the day, was a union of many countries and states that flat-out hated each other or simply couldn't see eye to eye.

The Soviets could only gain the cooperation of its member states through fear and brutality. Under that kind of political environment, loyalties hardly ever last and dissent is only inevitable

Invade North Vietnam wholesale and prepare for a very long term campaign and occupation.
Realistically I don't think it would have been possible either way. Not in the military sense, but it would have been incredibly unpopular with the public no matter what.

>>2478065
SOME FOLKS ARE BORN

>>2478290

I don't disagree, just pointing out how difficult it is to get your population to support a distant war. The soviets fulfilled all of this guys first 4 criteria, yet it was still not enough. I seriously doubt if the Americans tried any of those things it would have worked. More likely it would have just led to greater dissent at home.

>>2478227
It would be way easier to just drop a nuke on Hanoi.

File: B-52 Vietnam.jpg (72KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x581px

>>2478074
>>Support a better regime
>>Fight in the south like a counter-insurgency, not a conventional war
>>Focus more on grooming a competent and dedicated force to take over once you leave

Also; bomb the fuck out'a North Vietnam.

>>2478263
Most of the aircraft losses were caused by the bombing strategy led by D.C. and was counter-intuitive.

>>2478232
Recovering from the mafiaesque corruption of the 1970s and then in the 1980s their satellite states began having massive problems with supply-demand disconnects, crops rotting in fields due to no laborers being sent to harvest. Plus, Aghanistan is hard as fuck land. Like imagine invading switzerland.

>>2478074

This is spot on. The huge mistake was backing Ngo Dinh Diem; he was virulently pro-Catholic and anti-Buddhist, which alienates ~80% of South Vietnam right there, making them much more likely to support the north.

But the counter-insurgency bit is right on too. Choosing Westmoreland over Yarborough for COMUS MACV cemented the US strategy of trying to fight big battles, a la Korea or WWII. Yarborough is the guy behind todays Green Berets, and wanted to fight a much more counter-insurgency style war.

You finally would have needed to win the hearts and minds of those in North Vietnam who supported the communists, but weren't die hard. Once the communists lose the mass support, they've lost the war.

>>2478074
Another option is to tell the French to get fucked in the first place after WW2, then Vietnam gets to be the Israel of Southeast Asia or something.

>>2478065
North Vietnam to not immediately violate the cease fire once they leave.

>>2478860
They were violating it the entire time

File: oaiioGa.jpg (30KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 360x360px

>>2478065

1) Full Invasion: Completely invade North Vietnam. Prepare enough forces to defend against a very likely Chinese Counteroffensive (with possible soviet meddling).

No one was willing to do that because of Korea. China wasn't seen as a backwater push over but as a serious player willing and able to sustain extreme losses.

The ironic things is : If America would have been able to prevent soviet support/intervention the overwhelming US air superiority would have neutralized the Chinese number. They could have easily disrupted the Chinese logistical system too a point where China would have been able to sustain large offensives.

2) Exploit the Sino-Soviet split from the start of the war. Drasticly reduce chinese aid by increased cooperation with China. Bombing North Vietnam more ruthless. Instead of targeting the nearly non existent industry the aim would have to be agriculture. Bombing the damms to completely disrupt the rice production, starving the North into submission.

Picking a decent South Vietnamese leader and training and equipping the ARVN to realistic standards would have greatly helped.

The ARVN was trained and equipped according to US-doctrine. This was only sustainable with massive US help because the need for ammo, fuel, armaments and equipment couldn't be fullfilled by the underdeveloped vietnamese industry.

The ARVN was so dependent on American help that once the USA left and significantly reduced its aid the ARVN was basically unable to fullfill basic combat duties. Artillery officers charged money to provide artillery support due to the lack of ammo.

>>2478087
This.

>>2478065
Getting overtly involved before 1962 or not at all.

It ain't me right guise?

>>2478065
America did win. Remember the Paris Peace Accords? North Vietnam came to the peace table.

>>2478203
>>2478508
>>2478561
>>2478595

The Vietnam War just goes to show you can't win political victories through military means alone. Militarily, the US won- they won every battle, the VC suffered massive casualties relative to what they inflicted upon the US, and following the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong had its back utterly broken.

By the time the US withdrew, the VC and North Vietnam had gotten their shit kicked in and weren't in any fighting shape. A few short years later, North Vietnam invaded and South Vietnam collapsed like a house of cards.

It doesn't matter how strong your ally is if your own regime is rotten and incompetent to the core, and over 80% of your populace is vehemently against you- you're going to collapse.

Likewise, it doesn't matter how much support they throw at you, and how much of a pulp they beat your enemy into, if your government isn't sustainable, and South Vietnam was fucking anything but sustainable.

>>2478263
>aircraft statistics

Lol what

Show the ground ones, also a good portion of those wouldve been russian/US pilots fighting, as well as russian AA.