Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Well, you have to kind of determine what you mean by unlikely victories over technology.

For example, you could say the N. Vietnamese because they where technologically outclassed, but they paid for their victory in the millions of dead vietnamese whereas America suffered only 50,000 dead.

But they still won. The means justifies the end?

Originally Posted by Welshwarrior

But they still won. The means justifies the end?

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Technology is only one factor in warfare. Mass is another factor and is, in fact, one of the origional principles of warfare as enumerated by Clauswitz.

So in Vietnam, mass overpowered technology but is that really an unlikely victory? Or is it really just simply the MASS overpowering the numerical multipliers that technology gives, which is what happened.

Oh, and at "Blackhawk Down" the helos where flying low and slow, it isn't that difficult of a shot and RPGs are capable of downing a helo.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

No, you misunderstand what I'm saying. Technology is only one factor in warfare. Mass is another factor and is, in fact, one of the origional principles of warfare as enumerated by Clauswitz.

So in Vietnam, mass overpowered technology but is that really an unlikely victory? Or is it really just simply the MASS overpowering the numerical multipliers that technology gives, which is what happened.

the north vietnamese didn't defeat the US forces, the US media & public opinion did.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

the north vietnamese didn't defeat the US forces, the US media & public opinion did.

No? Who took South Vietnam? The Press?

it's an over simplification, sure but public opinion surely didn't do the cause any good. the US was always restraining themselves in relation to numbers of troops stationed in country. trying to win with tech rather than sheer numbers.

the US left, charlie moved in.

Originally Posted by chewie_nz

it's an over simplification, sure but public opinion surely didn't do the cause any good. the US was always restraining themselves in relation to numbers of troops stationed in country. trying to win with tech rather than sheer numbers.

the US left, charlie moved in.

Not what the history books say.

Nah, Chewie is actually right. So long as the USA stood guard over S.Vietnam the country was independent and 'relatively' stable. When the US public ran out of "stomach" for the war they pulled out and S.Vietnam crumbled under the millitary might of the N.Vietnamese.

It's pretty sad actually, but it's actually a better example of how propogandist warfare is the most effective against democratic societies, something that islamic fundamentalists have learned very well. Maybe all the millitary power of Western societities will fail to protect them as the lessons from Vietnam arm their enemies with the tools to unlocking the inherent weakness of democratic systems, the lack of political will because they're dependent on the emotions of their voters.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Nah, Chewie is actually right. So long as the USA stood guard over S.Vietnam the country was independent and 'relatively' stable. When the US public ran out of "stomach" for the war they pulled out and S.Vietnam crumbled under the millitary might of the N.Vietnamese.

It's pretty sad actually, but it's actually a better example of how propogandist warfare is the most effective against democratic societies, something that islamic fundamentalists have learned very well. Maybe all the millitary power of Western societities will fail to protect them as the lessons from Vietnam arm their enemies with the tools to unlocking the inherent weakness of democratic systems, the lack of political will because they're dependent on the emotions of their voters.

Well further to that maybe you would like to eplain how that sits with the following:

US troops ordered to avoid London (From the BBC)

RAF Lakenheath is one of the bases affected
Thousands of US military personnel based in the UK have been banned by commanders from travelling to London in the wake of Thursday's bomb attacks.

Details of the travel ban, enforced on Friday, emerged as US President George W Bush said the US would "not retreat in the face of terrorists" .

He said: "In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you."

Well Thanks for that George. Comments gents?

Originally Posted by Welshwarrior

Well further to that maybe you would like to eplain how that sits with the following:

US troops ordered to avoid London (From the BBC)

RAF Lakenheath is one of the bases affected
Thousands of US military personnel based in the UK have been banned by commanders from travelling to London in the wake of Thursday's bomb attacks.

Details of the travel ban, enforced on Friday, emerged as US President George W Bush said the US would "not retreat in the face of terrorists" .

He said: "In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know the American people stand with you."

Well Thanks for that George. Comments gents?

That order has been rescinded.