Would US win Vietnam war if they made ground offensive against North Vietnam?

Question

US only bombed North Vietnam, and hence North was dependent on China and USSR for supply means little was achieved, in return heavy loss of aircrews and planes decreased US moral. NVA used Laos and Cambodia as their enter zone, they came from there attacked and fled to there where US was not allowed to go.

So instead of this if US made all out ground offensive against North Vietnam to capture it with support from South Vietnam, would US win Vietnam war?

Answer 1

The bombing campaign was not effective against North Vietnam due to the rules of engagement-

the targets were hand picked by LBJ and he did not allow the military to hit the targets they believed would to the most damage against the North first.

The target list was turned upside down so those were to be hit last.

So had Operation Rolling Thunder been conducted how the Air Force wanted to do it- the results would have been very different.

Next the US only conducted black ops in Laos and Cambodia even though the NVA were bringing supplies through there.

Had the US army invaded North Vietnam- the war either could have ended rather quickly or you could have seen Chinese soldiers pouring over the boarders like they did in the Korean war.

Answer 2

the only way the US could have won and kept the Communists from winning in South Vietnam would have been to adopt a 40 year strategy at the very beginning



that is how the British Prevailed against communist Guerrillas in Malaya



the US never consider a long commitment any war considered must be a war that does not last for an entire presidential term for Political reasons



as such a winning strategy to defeat the Communists was never adopted



an all out ground war in North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia would have cost way too many american lives for any political party to justify



as to those that say America did not lose in Vietnam they certainly did not win



their objective was to keep South Vietnam from turning Communist and within 2 years of the US departure all of Vietnam was under a communist regime



end of story



58,209 dead American to accomplish nothing is not a win

Answer 3

To quote Bugs Bunny "What a Maroon!"



TET 68 was planned as the north was down 2 or 3 generations or military aged men, the bombing campaigns were close to shutting down manufacturing, NLF was not exactly popular in RVN.



So they figure they will attack and win over public support in the south. The resulting 40 or so days saw them defeated in each and every battle. NLF was now out in the open and fleeing for Laos or Cambodia along with PAVN units. The Hue City Massacres pissed off the men in the south to the point ARVN was OVERWHELMED with volunteers to fight them.



THAT LOSS is why they went to Paris. However SORRY MF's like John "The Great Liar" Kerry lied their sorry azz's off to Congress. Back to that scheisse later.



The US pulled out with the promise of coming back in serious force if the north attacked. A small incursion was the test of our Congress. When they put their collective thumbs up the collective *** the rebuilt PAVN rolled over RVN.



What those sorry MF's did to people is no secret...it is just not published much since it goes against the myth factory Viet Nam became. What they continue to do is no secret either....just gets ignored here by the press as it does not suit their agenda.



SSG US Army 73-82

1 cousin on 26W, Army SSG

1 cousin WIA by friendly fire in Da Nang., Marine LC

1 cousin that came back with the same problems he had when he went. Spec 5



Back to Kerry for a moment...ever noticed how he NEVER goes to any Little Saigon for his award for having helped RVN in its struggle. That is because many in that community would cut off his tally whacker and stuff it in his mouth...and THAT ain't a "This ain't a Now this is no $h!t" Sea Tale!

Answer 4

What makes you think that the US lost the Vietnam War?



Besides that, your knowledge of the war is a bit flawed. We regularly bombed the bad guys in both Laos and Cambodia and went in on the ground a couple of times. Our aircrew losses were not particularly heavy relatively speaking, and decreased US moral was not a result of those losses.



WTF is an 'enter zone'?

Answer 5

The US Military won every battle in Vietnam and dealt NV a major defeat during the Tet Offensive. But while we won on the battle field the civilians surrendered back home. Out of the jaws of victory we pulled defeat.

Answer 6

Not only that but for most of the war there were areas of hanoi that weren't bombable based on political considerations (which to this day I have never understood or never heard a reliable explanation why they were no go zones). I guess it came down to the U.S. not wanting to expand the war to possibly bring China or USSR in to the war. But I feel had we used all our resources short of nukes and invaded the north we would have prevailed fairly quickly...but it would have taken like a WWII level of total effort for several years and I don't know if the american public would have supported such an effort.



You also have to remember that it had only been 15 years since we were in korea and when we invaded the north there and pushed to the chinese border the chinese responded by attacking us with a million chinese soldiers.

Answer 7

Possibly, but there is also the risk of bringing China fully into the conflict (their advantages in manpower and local logistics would be extremely difficult to overcome) and making a conflict with the Soviets much more likely (given the prospect of nuclear weapons, such a case would be unacceptable).



"Winning" in Vietnam was simply too risky, because Vietnam is not important enough to risk a conflict with the two communist powers that could easily turn nuclear.

Answer 8

No, they were losing in the south anyway due to not allowing the troops to go all out and win. They were constantly hobbled by the White House and the Pentagon. As a result, the US was losing 20 US troops every day there for each of the 8 years, 58,000 dead troops total. Public pressure back home is what ended the US involvement there.

Answer 9

The US didn't lose in Vietnam.

We walked away with a peace agreement with the north:



"In early October, American and North Vietnamese representatives met in Paris. By October 11, they had hammered out a peace agreement. Its key elements were: all parties would initiate a cease-fire in place 24 hours after signing the agreement; U.S. forces and all foreign troops would withdraw from South Vietnam no later than 60 days after signing the agreement; American prisoners would be released simultaneously with the withdrawal of American and foreign forces; and a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord would be created to organize and oversee free and democratic elections to determine the political future of the South. "



The north then invaded the south and the Democrats in Congress refused to abide by our treaty with South Vietnam.

Answer 10

I just find it amusing that Americans can't admit losing. They went to Vietnam to change hearts and minds and stop the spread of communism. Did they achieve their goal? NO.

The USA retreated and the communists took the south. Who won?

Answer 11

If you look at a map of the vegetation in Vietnam there then you would know why that would have made little difference. There is a huge amount of jungle there

Chetak

Answer 12

That is a political call. It is far beyond the scope of anybody in LBJ's White House. Nor does your invasion stop the supplies from Russia or China.