VIETNAM or IRAQ WAR: What is it good for?? Absolutely nothing?? Or ...????

That's total.. You could count on 3.5 hang time unless you were doing something to drive the burn up. Even then, it was hard to push it hard enough to get below a 3.0. 3900 in the tanks was "normal" T/O fuel, NATOPS/SOP on deck was 600#.

I think if I flew Max conserve other than a MaxQ climb to altitude if I was just up running radar/esm, I could get 750-800pph over the flight.

And yes, that is for both motors. Having the APU online for AC or other reasons I think added ~150 PPH to the burn.

Then we'd better just throw in the towel. Period. Thank God for the generation of the '30's -- the Depression Generation. The ones that had the "least" while growing up ..... I'm not sure enough of the youtube generation and their burned-out left-over lefty '60's parents and grandparents have the stomach for the really, really hard actions that need to be taken today ... to prevail and WIN over Islamic fascism.

Of course it was .... refer again to what happens when one wages a "limited war" (above) ...

Now before I step on any toes or say something supremely stupid and ignorant, just hear me out.

What were the consequences of losing the Vietnam war?

I think, in a certain sense, we got off very lucky with the whole affair. The domino effect didn't pan out, the Soviets crashed for economic reasons, and a great many people see "communist" Vietnam as rapidly shaping itself into a respectable, capitalist, productive member of World Society.

If anything, losing in Vietnam has convinced large segments of more than one generation to believe that losing a war isn't all that big a deal.

I don't want to push our luck with another loss. Many Americans can't see that it could be problem.

I fail to see your point. Are you saying that there were no consequences for us losing? Or, that by us losing led to Vietnams capitalism and the end of the Soviet Union?

65 years ago, the world was in real danger of falling under the control of two totalitarian and genocidal empires. The only possible response to that threat was total war. The threat from Islamic extremists today is also very real, but they're not exactly on the cusp of world domination. So is an all-in, reinstate-the-draft, pave-the-country approach really the most appropriate response to the threat from these terror cells? The way I see it, the War on Terror is unlike any war we've ever fought in that it's primarily a war of security and intelligence, not armies squaring off against each other and the demand that puts on manpower and resources.

But on the other hand, I agree with MasterBates that a limited war means a limited chance to win that war. If we're going to go into a country and overthrow the government, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to see it through. And we certainly can't leave a country in worse shape and more dangerous than we found it. If we don't have the will to do whatever it takes to win, then we have no business starting a war. We can't just go into a country and hope that our limited war will be enough, then have no plan B when that doesn't work out.

Sounds much like the Powell Doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

From people I have talked to and read about, I don't think that tossing away pilots or ground troops while never having an intention to win the war pans out as acceptable. :icon_wink

I do however understand (I think) at what you are trying to say that in the long run communism killed itself off and thus us losing was a null point.

I think if we are going to fight in a war/police action/occupation period/(insert favorite term here)

We should be there with one goal - total complete victory on our terms and ours alone. Unlike the Vietnamese who just wanted us to leave them alone I doubt that the Islamic countries will be happy for us to stop at "bothering" them and expect that they will continue to pursue us.

Step on toes??? How about nose??? Don't you guys ever see beyond the end of your nose???

How does 2.5 million dead Cambodians and @ 2-5 million "boat people" (depends on your source) who had to leave their country and over 1 million "reeducated" Vietnamese sound for starters .... nearly 200,000 who died in the "reeducation" camps ???





How about throwing away 55,000+ American G.I.'s ... for no purpose. To lose is not a purpose. To win is at least .... something.

I flew Viets, Laotians, Cambodians, Hmong's and many others back to the USA for years when we were doing a LOT of relocating of those peoples that we had abandoned -- those who we had promised to support. Instead -- we ditched 'em and pulled out. For domestic political reasons. That makes your word --- worth nothing.

How about the Jihadists and many, many more around this nasty ol' world that now and forever that see the U.S. for what it has become -- soft and unwilling to get dirty -- and unless we go all out and crush someone which is highly unlikely -- that would take guts and political courage that I have not seen in quite a while -- as we're too soft and feminized now days to rip someone's throat out -- they will continue to believe that. I'm talkin' nations, here. Fortunately where Iran and nukes are concerned ... we still have one reliable friend who has the requisite fire in their belly to do what is necessary ....

So what does all this make us?? A paper tiger ..... that's what. The term --- 紙老虎 -- came from the Orient. Some think it dates from @150 years back, but we know this --- in 1956, Mao Tse-tung said of the USA:

"In appearance, it is very powerful, but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe the United States is nothing but a paper tiger..... "

Unfortunately, I find myself more in agreement with the Chairman at each and every passing decade.

Sooooooooo .... how are those for starters??

Neither were the National Socialists and Japanese militarists ... "on the cusp of world domination", to use your vernacular ..... but they were building, planning, and arming while the rest of the world slept ...

Today, all it takes is one nuke to do what 1000 Pearl Harbors did.

I dont think that losing a war is ever a null point, no matter how one loses.

For many Americans, there were no tangible consequences, and none of the bad things that should were supposed to happen did.

The Vietnam experience shapes the public's response to this present war. They are not invested in it, and they do not feel they have to be, because experience tells them it will not matter. In this sense, the greatest consequence of losing in Vietnam was that it trained people not to care.

I think A4s and I are actually in agreement. A lot of people, both our own, and "them over there" are going to get hung out to dry. Again.

I get it. Agreed.

I always liked Colin Powell. Glad to know that I agree with him even when I don't realize it.

I wasn't trying to say that losing was a null point but rather the reason of going to war being to stop the spread of communism which later killed itself on it's own effectively made that reason for going to war a null point.

100% agree with you if you go to war it should be to kick ass.

Cat, that looks a lot like a bunch of B-17's heading for Berlin.

Not the countries themsleves, but a few of the radical citizens.......big difference.

The Japanese and Germans were much more powerful than Islamic militants could ever hope to be. Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany threatened our very existence, Islamic militants don't.......

As a conventional military, how can we combat supranational entities such as Islamic radicalism? Instead of just 'kicking ass', shouldn't we be adapting a political solution to take away the incentives to resorting to terrorism?
While I obviously do not condone terrorism and allowing our country to be attacked without an angry response, our tense relationship with the Islamic world didn't happen overnight...they didn't just wake up one day and decide to hate us. It was a lengthy process (origins can be debated) in which both parties (the West and Islam) had a role in.

......yet. I think his point was that National Socialists weren't much of a threat to global security until they seized control of a country's resources and people. I'm not saying this is any kind of certainty, but we are not completely safe (especially if you consider Iran's current foreign policies). World communism is not over with either, people. the Chinese still number over a billion as I last checked and it appears the PLA is working pretty hard to bring their military up to speed with America's.

I'm surprised, to say the least.

You're completely wrong -- you need to review your 20th century history. Japan was potent only to the degree we allowed -- think raw materials and industrial base ..... they had nothing but what we allowed them to buy and overrun . .... but they were smart, cunning, and planning ... yes, most certainly. And Germany??? They were the poor man of Europe after WW1.

For the time I'm referring to --- try the '20's and '30's ... or even during the Rhineland and Sudentenland excursions -- how about the rape of the Chinese mainland?? How about the Pacific Mandates?? WE allowed it to happen. WE let it happen ....

If the Brits and French or ANYONE (maybe the U.S.????) had drawn a line in the sand -- game over for the bullies.... as they ONLY succeed when good men do NOTHING. That's a constant.

Which is the whole point. Give your word. Keep your word. Be as good as your word .... we didn't and haven't for decades, now.

And you consider the Nazi's and Japanese more powerful than the current brand of Islamo-facism???? Rubbish. Consider the Islamists controlling the oil in the Middle East --- consider what that will do to the world economy ... it will make the Nazi's and Jap militarists look like pikers by comparison ....

Iran?!

China realizes that it cannot compete one for one with the US military, which is why they are going the asymetrical route......

Last I checked, for all intents and purposes, China is not a communist country anymore.

Interesting thoughts...

A4s and Catmando-- was there ever a pre-strike OCA sweep, or was that just considered pointless because of ROE??

The only things remotely communist about China are one-party rule and how they don't let peasants own their own land. Otherwise they've followed the Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore model of free market capitalism, and their standard of living is on the rise as a result. Yes, we're going to butt heads with China over certain things, but I think they know that their continued prosperity is closely tied to the rest of the world, and that the best thing for them is to maintain the status quo. So yes, we should definitely keep an eye on their military buildup, and keep the pressure on them on human rights issues and such, but I think some people see the word "communist" and assume that China is going to become the next Soviet Union, when really they're not similar at all.

Free market capitalism???

Ever been to Taiwan/pre or post Hong Kong/Singapore .... or Red China???

You obviously know little of China's "manifest destiny" point(s) of view ....

*edit* and rest assured ... the power structure in mainland China is most definitely of the communist variety. It's one big gray prison. No matter how much B.S. propaganda you fellows have swallowed over the past 30+ years ....