New fighter jet to bolster Russian air force, and India

[Barrister]

My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.

Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation.  It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war.  Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south.  The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.

South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development.  Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

[grumbler]

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

That's part of my point as well - with the added caveat that having to maintain a bigger military presence both economically and politically would have retarded the growth of both hypothetical Vietnams.

[Neil]

If South Vietnam still existed, then the diaspora might not have brought us the delightful rap stylings of Chuckie Akenz, like 'You Got Beef?'.

Such a world would be unpleasant, to say the least.

[jimmy olsen]

My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.

Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation.  It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war.  Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south.  The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.

South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development.  Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

No.

Vietnam nominal GDP  per capita $1168
South Korea nominal GDP  per capita $20,590

[Neil]

My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.

Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation.  It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war.  Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south.  The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.

South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development.  Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

No.

Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590

Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.

[jimmy olsen]

My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.

Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation.  It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war.  Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south.  The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.

South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development.  Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

No.

Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590

Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.

Forgot to put in 'per capita'

[Razgovory]

How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?

[jimmy olsen]

How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?

Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992
Malaysia nominal GDP per capita $8,624
Myanmar nominal GDP per capita $702

[Neil]

My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.

Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation.  It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war.  Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south.  The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.

South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development.  Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.

Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development?  Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?

No.
Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590

Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.

Forgot to put in 'per capita'

Still not a useful stat.  China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.

[jimmy olsen]

Still not a useful stat.  China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.

Even if one disregards the political differences between the two, that's a laughable statement. S. Korea is a first world country, from top to bottom, even in the backwoods. One can't say the same about China.

[Ideologue]

How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?

Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992

Expect that figure to jump to $5,992 if I ever win the lottery.

[Neil]

Still not a useful stat.  China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.

Even if one disregards the political differences between the two, that's a laughable statement. S. Korea is a first world country, from top to bottom, even in the backwoods. One can't say the same about China.

They're both chinky as hell though.  Also, South Korea has the disadvantage of being helpless before North Korea.

[Ideologue]

As long as the U.S. is willing to defend South Korea to the last Korean, it'll all be fine.

[Razgovory]

How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?

Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992
Malaysia nominal GDP per capita $8,624
Myanmar nominal GDP per capita $702

So yeah, closer to Thailand then South Korea.