Re: [SG2] weapons

> This was not a defeat militarily, but politically. The US kicked the
> living shit out of the VC and the NVA. We never put our full brunt of
> force against North Vietnam.

Did we win?  No.  If we put our full might into it, we might have won,
but
then what would have been the consequences in the rest of the world? 
There
would certainly be several million more dead vietmesse and tens of
thousands
of more dead G.I.'s, the US miilitary would probably have missed two
equipment upgrade cycles instead of one.  I hate to think of what that
might
have tempted the USSR into doing in the early and mid 1980's...

> >Lebonon -- high tech force defeated.
> Political loss

Doesn't matter, we still lost.

> WWII -- Mass production over super high tech (it's marginal that the
> Germans were more advanced in all fields. We started to beat them to
> the punch on fighters in production for quite a while there).

Luckily for a lot of Allied and Soviet soldiers, a lot of the times they
squandered thier super weapons (which had a lot of teething problems) on
green troops who did not know how to fight.  The only thing they might
have
been able to do would have been to prolong the war a little while (a
couple
of months) longer and drive the death toll higher.

> There's more to winning the war than technology. The Battle Of France
> had arguably more technology on the side of the French and British in
> regards to Tank design. But the German's with the smaller force, won
> through determination, elan and better coordination.

And much better skill at the operational levels.

ias