For me warfare is one of the most interesting and fruitful topics learn about in history, and there are many questions to be raised, debated, and hopefully answered. We'll be overviewing this through the case of Vietnam.
Vietnam changed the way many people look at war. The Vietnam has previously been ruled over by the Japanese prior to WW2, then they were ruled over by the French, then finally they struggled against us. As far as technology and weaponry goes, we outclassed them in everyway way, shape and form. We burned down their villages, we bombed their capital, we had around 586,000 troops stationed there. By the end of the war the American troop body count was around 50,000 and the North Vietmanese troop body count around 2 million. What does that say? We were statistically "winning" the war. Yet as you all know, what ultimatley ends a war is the surrender of your opponent and their refusal to fight on. We had pumped billions of dollars into the war, and fought for many years, but we simply could not wrestle the North Vietmanese into submission.
The war wasn't so much about who is the most powerful, but rather who has the most powerful will. In the end we threw our hands up in the air, and pulled out. The North Vietmanese rolled into Saigon and that was the end of it. If anything Vietnam showed that there is only a certian time span in which you can wage war. In Vietnam, our troops didn't want us to be there, even many of the South Vietmanese wanted to be there, and most of the people back home didn't want us there. It's extremely difficult to wage a war without morale and public support. Two things we didn't have, which most certianly played a role in the final outcome.
So let me raise these points.
Was Vietnam really an unwinnable war?
What makes a war unwinnable?
On which conditions should a country be able to declare war?
What are the primary determining factors in war?
How does human psychology influence war?
Vietnam changed the way many people look at war. The Vietnam has previously been ruled over by the Japanese prior to WW2, then they were ruled over by the French, then finally they struggled against us. As far as technology and weaponry goes, we outclassed them in everyway way, shape and form. We burned down their villages, we bombed their capital, we had around 586,000 troops stationed there. By the end of the war the American troop body count was around 50,000 and the North Vietmanese troop body count around 2 million. What does that say? We were statistically "winning" the war. Yet as you all know, what ultimatley ends a war is the surrender of your opponent and their refusal to fight on. We had pumped billions of dollars into the war, and fought for many years, but we simply could not wrestle the North Vietmanese into submission.
The war wasn't so much about who is the most powerful, but rather who has the most powerful will. In the end we threw our hands up in the air, and pulled out. The North Vietmanese rolled into Saigon and that was the end of it. If anything Vietnam showed that there is only a certian time span in which you can wage war. In Vietnam, our troops didn't want us to be there, even many of the South Vietmanese wanted to be there, and most of the people back home didn't want us there. It's extremely difficult to wage a war without morale and public support. Two things we didn't have, which most certianly played a role in the final outcome.
So let me raise these points.
Was Vietnam really an unwinnable war?
What makes a war unwinnable?
On which conditions should a country be able to declare war?
What are the primary determining factors in war?
How does human psychology influence war?
Last edited: