Vietnam question. What would be different if we had won?

Question

Okay somebody was asking a question about Vietnam and people were saying we could have won if we had done this or that differently. And it just suddenly occurred to me that I have never heard anybody say what we would have won. I'm sure people must have said it just not around me. I was just a kid but I vaguely remember stuff about dominoes and falling into the lap of the communists like rotten fruit and Kruschev was going to bury us which was why we did not dare lose. But apparently we did lose. But Kruschev didn't bury us. What am I missing?

Answer 1

The question should be is America ready to colonize and control like it attempted in the Philippines. Once you control militarily, set up your chosen officials to govern, then how long do you remain there or have troops ready to deploy? If we won the "conflict" in Vietnam, then we would have been faced in similar ways as in Iraq now. Snipers, bombings and the American public and other nations complaining, protesting until we leave, send back the many body bags, as America soon forgets until we try it again.

Answer 2

The war in Vietnam was a major rush for the economy. Many people profited. Ammunition has an expiration date, just like milk. I was a helicopter doorgunner. I was responsible for two M -60 machine guns, an M - 16, an M - 79 grenade launcher, and a 45. We were sent to the perimeter, often, and told to shoot. All...day...long. Just to get rid of the stuff. Yes...we could have won the war. But just for your own sake, try to look up the stats for ethnicity in the infantry.See how many black people were there. I'm white. Still pissed me off. So...if we'd won (???)...the government would probably be more militaristic than it is. Is that possible? GO TEAM KBS B Troop 7 / 17th Air Cav Vietnam 1968

Answer 3

Well, first off, no fall of Saigon, no slaughter of Vietnamese who didn't want communism. In addition, no slaughter in Cambodia. So millions of lives would have been saved.

If you wonder whether countries are better off with communism or not, compare today's Vietnam and Cambodia with South Korea and Malaysia. Former communist countries are 10-20 years behind. So Vietnam and Cambodia would have many times the technology, wealth, prosperity, education that they do now.

Losing Vietnam did lead to greater communist influence, but
Reagan used the USA's military buildup to politically pressure the Soviet Union, demanding the tear-down of the Berlin Wall, for example. In the 1950's and 60's, Russian tanks killed thousand in Eastern Europe to maintain power. In the late 80's, the Berlin Wall fell without a single shot being fired. Gorbachev relaxed the dictatorship of the USSR, only to have the government collapse.

Moral of the story: Our military power was sufficient to defeat an enemy without firing a shot. The threat was real, but was neutralized by a strong military. In fact, a weaker military would have made a real conflict more likely. So the "excessive" military spending so feared by the anti-war crowd actually saved military and civilian lives.

Answer 4

Won what? It was never clear why the US was involved in what was an internal debate over who should rule the country.
The US shot itself in the foot early on when they vowed to uphold the South Vietnam Government but ruled out supporting an invasion of North Vietnam. The US committed itself to maintaining the status quo. Thus there was nothing to win!! AT best there would still be two Vietnam nations sniping across the border, possibly a situation much like Korea today.


Peace......

Answer 5

We would have had 51 States! No, not really... The US never lost that war. The war was a global fight between social philosophies (Capitalism and Communism). Vietnam elected to go the other way so we left. I think the US has proved the victor in the social battle however we've learned a tinch of communism is necessary. Now the US has gotten a case of the 'BIG HEAD' and is headed down the path of the Roman Empire. What would have changed if we had stayed? Who knows... what would have changed had Custer whupped the Indians!

Answer 6

From W W II America never won a conventional war. American Army is not as motivated as American administration. Localising the war like Vietnamisation Afghanistanisation or Iraqisation is the other name for losing. Peace with honor is actually the peace with horror.

Answer 7

It's possible we would have another Korea to deal with. We would have troops stationed in South Vietnam, North Vietnam would have Vietcong/North Vietnamese. Possibly china would have used our presence to justify invading North Vietnam. then again we might have used limited nuclear weapons and created a wasteland where North Vietnam is now. "Winning" a war is not so much winning as not losing so much as the other guy.

Answer 8

Well, we didn't really lose, it was a massive popular uproar that pulled our troops out. I suppose the US would have rushed headlong into a situation we couldn't deal with because we never learned the lesson of loss. Maybe we would have supported Poland and Czecslovakia when the Soviets intervened there, maybe we would have openly defended Afganistan, maybe supported a Taiwanese invasion of China... It would have just meant the possibility of a much harder loss- maybe military defeat, maybe nuclear war.

Answer 9

If we won, there would be a North and South Vietnam, much like Korea. And the US wouldn't be such a bunch of gutless turds when it comes to troop deployments.

Answer 10

You're missing the bloodbath following the Fall of Saigon, and the Killing Fields in Cambodia.