Re: Tech Levels and Quality was Re: DS3 design (long)

On Sunday 26 September 2004 17:40, Laserlight wrote:
> Sam Penn said:
> > IOW, the VC were willing/able to keep on fighting until the US
> > decided that it wasn't worth it and went home. i.e., the US lost.
>
> I took Beth's question to mean a low-tech army beating a high-tech one
> *in battle*, which didn't happen in Nam.

Though if you know that you're outclassed, the very last thing you
want to do is engage in a open battle with your opponent. It's not
clear from the original question, but she did mention guerilla
warfare as a possibility, which is generally a series of fights
rather than a single battle.

On Sunday 26 September 2004 17:49, John Atkinson wrote:
> You could make the argument that the US lost Vietnam.

I've never seen anyone argue otherwise before.

> More correctly, 
> the United States never managed to turn military victory into  
> political gains that would secure a favorable peace.  At no time did
> the PAVN/NLF forces meet American troops in the field and beat them in
> a fight.

Yep, though I'd say that if you can't get political gains, then
the victory is pretty pointless (though not as bad as a military
defeat).
Politics is generally why people get into a war in the first place.

-- 
Be seeing you,				   http://www.glendale.org.uk/
Sam.					jabber: samuel.penn@jabber.org