How would the Vietnam war be fought differently if it began today?

Question

Many military strategies and technologies, as well as strategies have changed since 1969. If we entered the Vietnam war today, how would it be fought differently?

Please STFU about Iraq.

Answer 1

Actually, had anybody but Johnson been President during his administration that conflict would have worked out OK. If Kennedy had been still alive, he was a big believer in special forces (and shoved them down the Pentagon's throat in many cases), and the effective little local campaigns would likely have gotten more attention. Nixon was too late, coming to the office on a Vietnamization program. Ho Chi Minh announced his strategy early on, and only a man with Johnson's arrogance could have ignored it.
How we would (I hope) fight that war today would be to have the big firebases and modern equipment, but largely, we'd use this plan:
Di jin, wo tui. Di jiu, wo roa. Di pi, wo da. Di tui, wo jui. (Enemy advances, we withdraw. Enemy rests, we harass. Enemy tires, we attack. Enemy withdraws, we pursue.) Teach that and train local militias, and it works.

Answer 2

Look at the war in Iraq and that may be the same circumstances that a war in Vietnam would be faught today.
You have to look into the Vietnam war starting back in the 1940's after world war 2 when it started with France in order to understand what was trying to be done and the inability of the United States to understand the Asian culture and beliefs.
The Korean war was basicly the fault of the American government and their lack of knowledge of the Korean culture and what they had gone through under Japanese rule for 40 years.
Wars are different now than they were in WW2 and Korea. Troups are sent to a location for a certian amount of time, usually 1 year, then sent home. Some are returned back to the fighting after a year or so. In WW2 a solider that started in Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 might not see home until the end of the war. He was a seasoned combat veteran that knew what to look for and when not to put his head up. This type of fighting was thought to be too much for the psychie and so the military reduced the amount of time a man spent in combat to one year. But this created another problem there were fewer seasoned combat veterans and this resulted in more troops putting their head up when they shouldn't have and thus more casualties.

Answer 3

Only a few people have any idea what the war was about. Some people still think we should invade any country which is important to us (see oil in Iraq & Libya). Vietnam was a military victory and a political failure much like the wars we are currently in. I think people are beginning to understand how we can win militarily and fail politically now that they are seeing the failed policies which were put in place 10 years ago. The domino theory was correct. After Vietnam fell to communism Cambodia and Laos followed. SE Asia did fall to communism. What young people like you don't understand is the USSR was a formidable enemy. Kruschev promised to "bury" America in a televised message. This was the atmosphere in the USSR until Gorbachev, who offered to destroy all their mukes and Reagan wouldn't do it. The world should be thankful for Gorby for taming the war-mongering Reagan and ending the cold war.

Answer 4

I think Hitler was right when he said: the ultimate power lies within the people. Meaning it doesn't matter it is the people that win the war. No matter what strategy the Americans and its allies use today they would get nowhere. The Americans can barely hold on in Iraq- not even.

The only way America could go into Vietnam successfuly is if they dropped the A-bomb today. That is the only contradiction about the above paragraph. That is the only exception.

Answer 5

first we would have the best equipment on earth. Half my company in Nam still had M-1s while I had a M-16. We would be allowed to do our jobs because Washington could see what we were doing in minutes not days. The press would be so embedded with us we could not just destroy a village because we received sniper fire from the area.Also may be we could come home as hero's not scum like we were treated. I was 19 & I was attacked by 4 thugs in a train station in NYC just because I had a limp from a bullet wound in my right ankle. People in the station stood & watched as I had the crap beat out of me. NO ONE tried to help until they were done& I was lieing on the floor in my own blood. Today that would not happen because if anyone tuched a returning military person ( Wounded or not ) they would have the whole place on their backs & they would be lieing in THEIR blood. I have not been back to NYC, since & tell my friends to stay away from NCY to.You are free to say anything you want about my answer But that is how I FEEL.

Answer 6

I think it it is a great question but I served 2 1/2 years "in-country"


It would not be fought as any assessment of the Vietnamese Army would tell us they are:

1. determined, loyal
2. well trained
3. are very nationalistic
4. ruthless
5. hostile terrain: mountain & jungle


Basically unlike most countries they are ready to move into the hills and come out when it is to their advantage They have never had any real aggressive behaviours towards anyone except those who "messed" with them. Contrary to myth the Vietnamamese never liked and have fought the Red Chinese since Vietnam. they got material from the Soviet Bloc during Vietnam.

The Vietnamese Army unlike that of Iraq and such will not quit, they will hunker down and go for the long haul.

It would be illogical to fight the Vietnamese.

Sad they went down the road to Communissm when they did; blame the French for that.

Hey, as much as we pounded them, and we did they never stopped.

Do note that that "Viet Cong" were basically out of the war after 1968, but the"NVA' was, is like that Eveready battery bunny.

Answer 7

Andy,

Good question and please see my previous posts about this subject.

First, NAM would probably be more "LGB" lazer guided bombs, more covert and less ground troops. More precision drops based upon "sat pics" and intel. There would also be internal disruption tactics to de-stabilize the govenment and give confidence to an over-throwing power.

The similarities between NAM and Iraq are amazing:

The good guys and the bad guys look the same and may switch sides as it suits them personally.

Both cultures are based on generations of CORRUPTION and bribes at the highest levels.

An lastly, EVERYONE felt the US would just get tired and leave before the job was complete and things would just go back to how it was before. There would be a lot of dead people and bombs, but it would just revert to how it was before so NOBODY was going to stand up and make a stand that they couldn't reverse when we packed our stuff and left.

Hope this helps

Answer 8

We'd hit them from the air, surgically, to take out leaders, at the start. Then we'd go on the ground, and honestly, at that phase, it's 1969 all over again. Infantry combat hasn't changed much since then.

Answer 9

if we had it to do over,i would hope we would follow the advice we gave the french at the end of WW2.


joel. we knew the consequences to war in SE asia. a loss. the advice we gave the french was to withdraw from SE asia, a war could not be won there. but we fail to follow our own advice.

Answer 10

We wouldn't.

That's why we don't go into Vietnam now even though we know they have nuclear weapons.

Iraq taught us a few things about nation building.