Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  Militarov on Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:31 am

    havok wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:His evidence is trying to attack others militaries or training or whatever with a single sentence such as:

    From one professional to another, am sorry to hear that your military has deteriorated to that condition.

    Cant get more pathetic than that.
    Like the man's comment about the movie Independence Day was really professional.

    Its called being sarcastic.

    Also do i look to you like i care being "professional" here? No, not really, i am professional when i need to be professional and i am highly selective with whom i am professional.

    Move along.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:04 am

    Militarov wrote:Its called being sarcastic.

    Also do i look to you like i care being "professional" here? No, not really, i am professional when i need to be professional and i am highly selective with whom i am professional.

    Move along.
    Likewise...Move along.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:07 am

    havok wrote:As for Operation Bolo, it proved what combat pilots always knew -- it is the man that counts.

    Too bad the top brass were too late to embrace such logic. And in case of Vietnam, the US policy of not striking the North's airbases and other facilities, routinely, did not win them that war. Afaik northern airbases were never touched in that war. The US leadership had no idea how to run and win that conflict, at all.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:30 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    havok wrote:As for Operation Bolo, it proved what combat pilots always knew -- it is the man that counts.

    Too bad the top brass were too late to embrace such logic. And in case of Vietnam, the US policy of not striking the North's airbases and other facilities, routinely, did not win them that war. Afaik northern airbases were never touched in that war. The US leadership had no idea how to run and win that conflict, at all.
    This is where you are wrong.

    In criticizing the US regarding the Vietnam War, it is always convenient and deliberately inflammatory to go after the military leadership, after all, it is a war. But the reality is that the Vietnam War was micromanaged by the civilian leadership. That was not only a fact but also the greater truth. It is surprising that you do not know it.

    A war has two EQUALLY important components:

    - The political goals (long term).
    - The military objectives (short term).

    Together, the political goals dictate military objectives and in return, successful military objectives can be powerful incentives for the other side to concede the war.

    The long term goal is to get Country X to surrender, therefore, the short term military objectives must be to take that hill, blockade that harbor, mine that valley, etc...etc...

    In the Vietnam War, there were divergent political goals between the two sides and each have its own sponsor. The North wanted unification. The South wanted partition. Eventually, one side must lose. North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union do not answer to their citizens. South Vietnam and the US had to answer to theirs. As such, material support for South Vietnam depends on the generosity of the US citizenry. You are fighting for half the country while the other side is fighting the whole. That means the only way a partition could happen is if the other side loses material support, and that loss of support is unlikely with China and the Soviet Union.

    Militarily speaking, the US controlled the Vietnamese airspace and the Vietnamese seaspace. Battle for the southern half was effective enough that North Vietnam had to violate the borders of Laos and Cambodia to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the Viet Cong guerrilla force. If the political goal for South Vietnam and the US was for unification, the NVA by itself would have been defeated. This scenario is more plausible than the one where China would actually commit Chinese troops to front line combat as US troops were.

    The point here is that the US military met all of its military objectives as defined by the political goal, which was flawed to start. The blame for the loss of South Vietnam rests on the civilian US leadership, not the military.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:39 am

    havok wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    havok wrote:As for Operation Bolo, it proved what combat pilots always knew -- it is the man that counts.

    Too bad the top brass were too late to embrace such logic. And in case of Vietnam, the US policy of not striking the North's airbases and other facilities, routinely, did not win them that war. Afaik northern airbases were never touched in that war. The US leadership had no idea how to run and win that conflict, at all.
    This is where you are wrong.

    In criticizing the US regarding the Vietnam War, it is always convenient and deliberately inflammatory to go after the military leadership, after all, it is a war. But the reality is that the Vietnam War was micromanaged by the civilian leadership. That was not only a fact but also the greater truth. It is surprising that you do not know it.

    A war has two EQUALLY important components:

    - The political goals (long term).
    - The military objectives (short term).

    Together, the political goals dictate military objectives and in return, successful military objectives can be powerful incentives for the other side to concede the war.

    The long term goal is to get Country X to surrender, therefore, the short term military objectives must be to take that hill, blockade that harbor, mine that valley, etc...etc...

    In the Vietnam War, there were divergent political goals between the two sides and each have its own sponsor. The North wanted unification. The South wanted partition. Eventually, one side must lose. North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union do not answer to their citizens. South Vietnam and the US had to answer to theirs. As such, material support for South Vietnam depends on the generosity of the US citizenry. You are fighting for half the country while the other side is fighting the whole. That means the only way a partition could happen is if the other side loses material support, and that loss of support is unlikely with China and the Soviet Union.

    Militarily speaking, the US controlled the Vietnamese airspace and the Vietnamese seaspace. Battle for the southern half was effective enough that North Vietnam had to violate the borders of Laos and Cambodia to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the Viet Cong guerrilla force. If the political goal for South Vietnam and the US was for unification, the NVA by itself would have been defeated. This scenario is more plausible than the one where China would actually commit Chinese troops to front line combat as US troops were.

    The point here is that the US military met all of its military objectives as defined by the political goal, which was flawed to start. The blame for the loss of South Vietnam rests on the civilian US leadership, not the military.

    I said US leadership, meaning the politicians.
    The top brass failed in pointing out the failed doctrine which they were instructed to implement. I don't remember any of them coming out and speaking against their retarded orders and objectives that lead to an endless war they were bound to loose. As they did, they lost that war.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:45 am

    KiloGolf wrote:I said US leadership, meaning the politicians.
    The top brass failed in pointing out the failed doctrine which they were instructed to implement. I don't remember any of them coming out and speaking against their retarded orders and objectives that lead to an endless war they were bound to loose. As they did, they lost that war.
    The military failed to point out ? Were YOU in those meetings ?

    Even in your Russia, the military is supposed to obey. Any disagreements, you keep them in-house. But ultimately, you have to obey and go out and try to accomplish your objectives.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:52 am

    havok wrote:So here is a lesson to you and anyone in this forum who is willing to learn, even if the lesson came from an American: In combat, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours, and cheating is allowed. (...)

    You are the one who completely missed the point.

    It's not like we condemn you about cheating or ambushing or what so your lengthy explanation is total unneccessary and meaningless.

    Okay, you show your moment of brilliance at Operation Bolo but at the end of the war which air forces suffered more, and after all who had bigger flying fleet ?

    And is that enough to prove my point about the VNAF, which is although it was also trained by the USSR but it did not perform poorly like some other countries ?

    havok wrote:You really think the US is going to reveal the details of Tolkachev's work ? Even now ?

    In short you will provide no proof for your arguments ?

    havok wrote:The Soviets simply did not have air defense radars sophisticated enough to consistently detect and track low altitude aircrafts, especially high speed ones like the F-111 and cruise missiles.

    Reason and proof ? Why not ?

    havok wrote:He took pictures of...

    - Circuit boards,
    - Finished components,
    - User manuals from manufacturer to finalized instructions for field use,
    - Documentations on the modifications to the MIG-25 with its new look down shoot down radar,
    - Technical and operational plans for the new Soviet AWACS,
    - Concept for a new Soviet bomber,

    And why do these tell that the USSR can't shot down F-111 but not the opposite ?

    havok wrote:Like I said, Tolkachev never sold what he produced. The US did gave financial estimates for what he produced and put the money into a trust for the day when we would extract Tolkachev and his family out of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, that never happened. But Tolkachev's motivations never involved selling what he got.

    Like I care.


    Last edited by higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:52 am

    havok wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:I said US leadership, meaning the politicians.
    The top brass failed in pointing out the failed doctrine which they were instructed to implement. I don't remember any of them coming out and speaking against their retarded orders and objectives that lead to an endless war they were bound to loose. As they did, they lost that war.
    The military failed to point out ? Were YOU in those meetings ?

    Even in your Russia, the military is supposed to obey. Any disagreements, you keep them in-house. But ultimately, you have to obey and go out and try to accomplish your objectives.

    No, not really. One could resign and save some lives. Create media fuss. Congress could've started investigations and hearing early on. None of that happened in the mid or late 60s. It was either hardline Cold War retardation (and not fighting the enemy in the North) or hippies on the streets dodging the draft with lefty media covering irrelevant BS. The top brass were comfortably living the life in CONUS or Hawai while young GIs were getting massacred in South East Asia.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:50 am

    higurashihougi wrote:You are the one who completely missed the point.

    It's not like we condemn you about cheating or ambushing or what so your lengthy explanation is total unneccessary and meaningless.
    My lengthy reply was for your education.

    This is a military oriented forum, of which I find most members have never served in whatever military of their countries, and of which their ignorance of military affairs is revealing.

    higurashihougi wrote:Okay, you show your moment of brilliance at Operation Bolo but at the end of the war which air forces suffered more, and after all who had bigger flying fleet ?
    By focusing on sheer number, it is YOU who missed the point.

    Yes, the US lost more aircrafts, fixed and rotary wings, than the NVAF, but in terms of percentage of loss, the NVAF had the greater loss, especially with their prized MIG-21 fleet.

    Most people -- like you -- do not know of events like Operation Bolo where such events cuts straight to the heart of a debate. Take the MIG-21, for example, most people used this aircraft to show superiority of one hardware over another, as if they know what they are talking about. The -21 is lighter, smaller, more maneuverable, and so on. Speaking of propaganda, they got so caught up in the propaganda over the jet that they never bothered to research if there are any instances where the -21 could be defeated.

    higurashihougi wrote:And is that enough to prove my point about the VNAF, which is although it was also trained by the USSR but it did not perform poorly like some other countries ?
    But the NVAF did performed poorly.

    higurashihougi wrote:In short you will provide no proof for your arguments ?

    Reason and proof ? Why not ?

    And why do these tell that the USSR can't shot down F-111 but not the opposite ?
    If you are looking for definitive proof that Tolkachev had documents that literally said "The Soviets cannot detect the F-111 ", your immaturity at understanding this subject is evident.

    If the user manual says something like "The radar cannot be used in rain" then obviously you can counter this radar by flying in the rain. There is no need to be that specific. That is the point of intelligence gathering. Intelligence from human to hardware to signals. You put all these information together and compare against what you can and cannot do.

    higurashihougi wrote:Like I care.
    You should care. You are participating in a discussion that touches many related subjects, ranging from technical to historical. Further, I doubt that you have any military experience. So you should care for your own intellectual development.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:54 am

    KiloGolf wrote:No, not really. One could resign and save some lives. Create media fuss. Congress could've started investigations and hearing early on. None of that happened in the mid or late 60s. It was either hardline Cold War retardation (and not fighting the enemy in the North) or hippies on the streets dodging the draft with lefty media covering irrelevant BS. The top brass were comfortably living the life in CONUS or Hawai while young GIs were getting massacred in South East Asia.
    Yeah...As if that is unique to the Americans. I wonder how many Soviet generals were living comfortably in their vacation dachas while young Soviet troops were dying in Afghanistan.

    It is clear that you are more interested in casting as negative a light, no matter how feebly, on the US in Viet Nam to the point of absurdity. No need to continue this subject with you.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:02 am

    North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union do not answer to their citizens. South Vietnam and the US had to answer to theirs.

    What thẻ f*** is this shit ?

    So you mean Vietnamese citizen was forced to fight for their own country against US invader and the Saigon puppet, and Vietnam government did not respect their citizen like Saigon puppet government ?

    The North wanted unification. The South wanted partition.

    Vietnam wanted independence, unification, and wanted the US and her Ducangers to get the f*** out of Vietnam. The Saigon puppet government wanted to be the dog for Washington DC forever, because it was a dog created by the White House.

    This is a patriotic war not a civil war.

    Militarily speaking, the US controlled the Vietnamese airspace and the Vietnamese seaspace. Battle for the southern half was effective enough that North Vietnam had to violate the borders of Laos and Cambodia to create the Ho Chi Minh Trail to support the Viet Cong guerrilla force.

    You possesed a huge flying and floating fleet and you are boasting about bullying somebody who had nearly nothing.

    It is you who say cheating is OK in war so don't blame the Vietnamese for using whatever they had to support their comrades.

    If the political goal for South Vietnam and the US was for unification, the NVA by itself would have been defeated.

    Oh so the PAVN was spared by the mercy of Divine Uncle Sam, not because they managed to put up a good fight and forced the so-called mightly US to retreat ?

    And by the way you finally admit that the US wanted to DIVIDE Vietnam and PREVENT ITS UNIFICATION, right ?

    As such, material support for South Vietnam depends on the generosity of the US citizenry.

    What a docile puppet government.

    The point here is that the US military met all of its military objectives as defined by the political goal, which was flawed to start.

    Unluckly a number of Ducanger failed to understand so.

    The blame for the loss of South Vietnam rests on the civilian US leadership, not the military.

    Probably also the reason why cancers like F-12/SR-71, M16, F-22, F-35, B-2,... still persists in the US Army. And also why the US continued to use carpet bombing at Vietnam.

    Yeah...As if that is unique to the Americans. I wonder how many Soviet generals were living comfortably in their vacation dachas while young Soviet troops were dying in Afghanistan.

    At least the USSR leaders were not stupid enough to let their soldier being armed with M16 or AR-15.


    Last edited by higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:40 am; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:17 am

    My lengthy reply was for your education.

    Thanks but no need.

    Yes, the US lost more aircrafts, fixed and rotary wings, than the NVAF, but in terms of percentage of loss, the NVAF had the greater loss, especially with their prized MIG-21 fleet.

    And so ? The US still had to retreat with the a** being kicked so bad, by someone who were having a much smaller air force.

    Not something to be proud about.

    The -21 is lighter, smaller, more maneuverable, and so on. Speaking of propaganda, they got so caught up in the propaganda over the jet that they never bothered to research if there are any instances where the -21 could be defeated.

    Yes MiG-21 can be defeated in certain circumstances, everybody knows that no aircraft is 100% invincible no matter how strong they are so STFU with your unneccessary "education". And so ?

    But the NVAF did performed poorly.

    If you insist to believe so...

    If the user manual says something like "The radar cannot be used in rain" then obviously you can counter this radar by flying in the rain.

    You are not the manual, and we have no reason to automatically believe whatever you say. If you want our belief, plz, proofs and reasons.

    You should care. You are participating in a discussion that touches many related subjects, ranging from technical to historical.

    I don't care about why Tolkachev cooperated with the US. I only care about proof and reason why the USSR cannot shoot down F-111.

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:52 am

    higurashihougi wrote:Thanks but no need.
    Judging from the last two posts, you need the education, whether you chose to accept it or not. It looks like am debating a teenager.

    Looky here, kid...

    Just because you are on this forum as a Viet, that does not mean you have a monopoly on everything regarding Viet Nam. Unfortunately for you, I am also a Viet. I am a survivor of the 1968 Tet Offensive. I have studied the Vietnam War more than you have, which am willing to guess that you pick and choose what you want to read. That is not a good education, whether it is formal or informal. I can see that you do not have good critical thinking skills and that you lack basic science education. Any comment on military issues beyond the usual language used in propaganda style will be lost on you.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:19 am

    Too bad the top brass were too late to embrace such logic. And in case of Vietnam, the US policy of not striking the North's airbases and other facilities, routinely, did not win them that war. Afaik northern airbases were never touched in that war. The US leadership had no idea how to run and win that conflict, at all.

    Yeah... obviously Americas mistake was they did not murder enough Vietnamese people at the time.

    Really funny that some people talk about what they should have done to win because it usually would have meant a longer and more bloody war... the idea that they had no business there in the first place never crosses their small minds...

    In criticizing the US regarding the Vietnam War, it is always convenient and deliberately inflammatory to go after the military leadership, after all, it is a war. But the reality is that the Vietnam War was micromanaged by the civilian leadership. That was not only a fact but also the greater truth. It is surprising that you do not know it.

    Hahahahaha... top marks... it was Hitlers fault... brilliant.

    This is a military oriented forum, of which I find most members have never served in whatever military of their countries, and of which their ignorance of military affairs is revealing.

    Well perhaps you could do a bit more background reading first... at least then you would know that Kilo and Mil are not Russian and that your attempts to educate higurashihougi regarding his own country are a little amusing... if condescending.

    Most people -- like you -- do not know of events like Operation Bolo where such events cuts straight to the heart of a debate.

    No, he is blinded by the damage your country did to the environment in his country with bio agents like Agent Orange and all the other colour agents used in Vietnam that no one talks about now except to get US soldiers healthcare support.

    He realises you tried really hard to murder his people... please accept he probably does not appreciate the finer points of when you were more successful than at other times.

    But the NVAF did performed poorly.

    Yeah, they gave up immediately... oops, no, they didn't... they took on two superpowers... france and then the merickans... three if you count the Chinese...

    Just because you are on this forum as a Viet, that does not mean you have a monopoly on everything regarding Viet Nam. Unfortunately for you, I am also a Viet. I am a survivor of the 1968 Tet Offensive.

    How delicious... just because you live in the remains of a country America once noticed but now remember as just being a name of a bad war they lost does not mean you understand the country you live in boy. You need to join the US military and threaten to detonate nuclear weapons in the capital city of the Soviet Union and then read all the western propaganda about how they deserve it before you are properly educated enough to be on the internet...

    I have studied the Vietnam War more than you have, which am willing to guess that you pick and choose what you want to read. That is not a good education, whether it is formal or informal. I can see that you do not have good critical thinking skills and that you lack basic science education. Any comment on military issues beyond the usual language used in propaganda style will be lost on you.

    There are at least two sides to every story... the western version of the Vietnam conflict is fairly well known and easy to come by... and not very convincing.

    The fact that he came to this forum suggests he wants an alternative view, or maybe he wants to talk about Russian and Soviet military equipment.

    Either way, I doubt you have much unbiased information to share.

    In the 60s and 70s it was justified to save Asia from communism... ironically if you had not supported South Vietnam there would have been no need for assistance from China and the Soviets and Vietnam would likely have not become so Communist driven.

    The same mistake in Cuba... the locals didn't want communism but given the choice of communism or imperialism they chose the lessor of two evils.

    What is the message now? Bomb China? Make Nike shoes? Buy Blue jeans and crap light trucks?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    havok

    Posts : 73
    Points : 70
    Join date : 2010-09-20

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  havok on Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:12 am

    GarryB wrote:The same mistake in Cuba... the locals didn't want communism but given the choice of communism or imperialism they chose the lessor of two evils.
    Really ? How many Americans float to Cuba to live in the "Worker's Paradise" as so often spouted by Soviet propaganda ?
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2152
    Points : 2255
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:38 am

    havok wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The same mistake in Cuba... the locals didn't want communism but given the choice of communism or imperialism they chose the lessor of two evils.
    Really ? How many Americans float to Cuba to live in the "Worker's Paradise" as so often spouted by Soviet propaganda ?

    Really ? How many people live in Cuba, in comparison with the number of so-called Cuban emigree who choose the "Freedom Paradise" in America ?

    And why the Cubans supported the 1959 Revolution and supported the communist Fidel Castro, instead of living under the "freedom" of US-protected Batista regime ?

    Why did the 1959 Revolution suceeded, why the US-supported Batista regime was overthrown ? If the communist idea was sooo bad and the "freedom" of US-protected regime was sooo good, why Batista was overthrown ?

    No means of offence, but do your Ducangers have any novel and better arguments ?

    And by the way do you understand what is "cộng sản", "tư bản", or "chủ nghĩa xã hội" ? Or you just automatically say "cộng sản độc tài" without making a deep thinking about it ?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:39 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Too bad the top brass were too late to embrace such logic. And in case of Vietnam, the US policy of not striking the North's airbases and other facilities, routinely, did not win them that war. Afaik northern airbases were never touched in that war. The US leadership had no idea how to run and win that conflict, at all.

    Yeah... obviously Americas mistake was they did not murder enough Vietnamese people at the time.

    Really funny that some people talk about what they should have done to win because it usually would have meant a longer and more bloody war... the idea that they had no business there in the first place never crosses their small minds...

    Had they expanded their operations in the source of their problems (North) the US would likely and comfortably come on top and at least get to keep the South more than 1975 until USSR's collapse. And avoid loss of life too. China was unable to achieve much in the 1979 war with the Vietnamese, they would be positively trashed by hypothetical US forces stationed in the North.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:40 pm

    US couldn't face North Korea and China and have not won comfortably a war since ww2, and they came late to that party. So don't give us this bullshit they would have done wonders up north when they couldn't deal with it in friendly territory.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:43 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:US couldn't face North Korea and China and have not won comfortably a war since ww2, and they came late to that party. So don't give us this bullshit they would have done wonders up north when they couldn't deal with it in friendly territory.

    The South was hardly friendly. The US refused to fight the enemy and the enemy was in Hanoi, Haiphong and the northern border areas.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:04 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:US couldn't face North Korea and China and have not won comfortably a war since ww2, and they came late to that party. So don't give us this bullshit they would have done wonders up north when they couldn't deal with it in friendly territory.

    The South was hardly friendly. The US refused to fight the enemy and the enemy was in Hanoi, Haiphong and the northern border areas.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, keep telling yourself that. But it was obvious after 50,000 bodies came back home to be buried gives us indication they were there fighting a war, not on vacation.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:12 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:US couldn't face North Korea and China and have not won comfortably a war since ww2, and they came late to that party. So don't give us this bullshit they would have done wonders up north when they couldn't deal with it in friendly territory.

    The South was hardly friendly. The US refused to fight the enemy and the enemy was in Hanoi, Haiphong and the northern border areas.

    If that is what helps you sleep at night, keep telling yourself that. But it was obvious after 50,000 bodies came back home to be buried gives us indication they were there fighting a war, not on vacation.

    Had they finished the job in the North by 1965 or 1967, they could have potentially avoided lots of casualties.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1117
    Points : 1117
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:18 pm

    Possibly, since it was early in the war. Not by 1970 though.
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1241
    Points : 1263
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:27 pm

    Chinese hold USA to a draw in the 50s and beat them in the 70s. I think these days a proxy war between the two would be completely in favor of China.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 1859
    Points : 1887
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:27 pm

    Hannibal Barca wrote:Chinese hold USA to a draw in the 50s and beat them in the 70s. I think these days a proxy war between the two would be completely in favor of China.

    China was thoroughly surprised in Vietnam in 1979 and outmatched in Korea despite their superior numbers and momentum (July 1953).
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3035
    Points : 3160
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  kvs on Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:36 pm

    None of the above has relevance for today. The US cannot defeat Russia and it cannot defeat China. That does not mean that
    there will not be millions of dead civilians in those countries, but the US blowhards can only defeat them in their hubris rotted brains.
    Too many US politicians and pundits scale US military capability/capacity by their military budget. This is pathetic nonsense since
    the US MIC is a taxpayer gouging racket. The costs of the F-35 and the Zumwalt ammunition proves this. The US cannot
    build any submarine class for anywhere near as cheap as Russia and that has nothing to do with supposed US technological superiority.
    The more I hear the claims about ultra-quiet US submarines, the more I am convinced that there is nothing to back it up other than
    delusion. Quoting noise levels less than ocean background is simply retarded.

    Sponsored content

    Re: 1945–1952: The Early Cold War

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:44 am