To: TimF who wrote (148407 ) 10/20/2004 9:46:08 PM From: cnyndwllr Read Replies (2) | Respond to Tim, we see many of the same things but the devil is in the details. For instance, you say:Absent US support the ARVN had insufficient confidence and determination to fight off the North's conventional invasion, and it was a conventional invasion that defeated the South. could not be won." And I say that knowing that in the extreme "nuke em" or "do it no matter what the costs" sense, we might have destroyed their will to fight on. But remember, the length of time that will would have been dampened would have depended on how utterly we'd destroyed their spirit, because the ideas wouldn't have died no matter how many of them we killed. So while it might have been a lower level war, I think we'd still be fighting it.[t]he real sanctuary they had was in the North, and for a number of years in Laos and Cambodia . You're absolutely right and, if that made any sense, it was only because we didn't want to expand the war to involve China or Russia. Whatever the reason, it was bad news for our troops and a silly way to try to fight a war. n the later years of the war such "search and destroy" missions and other activity to try and actually defeat the enemy declined a lot.
