Thread: Deterrence as an Operational Objective question

Where is the Soviet empire right now?

Originally Posted by xinhui

seriously? a year after the march riot, where is DL right now?

Can you give a reason why India should start using that card?

Originally Posted by xinhui

Where is the Soviet empire right now?

So you want to say it was all because of China? The amount of weapon and support from Soviet Union in Vietnam during 10 years conflict with China was nothing compared with what they spent whereelse.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

So you want to say it was all because of China? The amount of weapon and support from Soviet Union in Vietnam during 10 years conflict with China was nothing compared with what they spent whereelse.

I'm sorry to say, don't take this the wrong way, but you have vastly over estimated Vietnam's importance on the world stage.

What the colonel said was that China wanted to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that a containment force in the south (Vietnam) will not draw away China's force in the north, near Soviet border. If so, then the Soviets could not move those troops from the far east to eastern Europe. Without that, NATO exerts that much more pressure on the Soviet Union.

Deng modernized China in the 1980s. Reagan revitalized the US at the same time. The Soviet Union could not cope with this double whammy. It collapsed in 1991.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

So now it is Vietnam's fault to draw Chinese troops into our country?

You're not reading the history. Hanoi got her own reasons for signing the Soviet-Vietnam Friendship Treaty but there is no doubt what Moscow had in mind.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

Not they wanted to attack us?

Of course they did. They fought two wars down south, didn't they? But you are not understanding the situation. The primary threat to China is to the north, not south. What they did in the south was to use their 2nd string troops. China's two best corps, the 38th and 39th Group Armies stayed north.

There was a deliberate reason for that - to demonstrate that China did not her best soldiers in the south and the Soviets will have to kill China all on her own without any help down south.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

In the whole history of Vietnam, we invaded China only one time and it was a preemptive attack to destroy their warehouses.

Let's stick to the post independence era.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

China knew that there would be no attack from Vietnam's side even if Soviet Union wanted.

China did not know that.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

So let's say it clearly: who wanted to bring 200k of Chinese troops south? CHINA itself.

No, China did not bring 200K troops south. Those troops were already in place. That was the point.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

That time Vietnam was busy in Cambodia. It doesn't make sense at all to say Vietnam is a threat to draw Chinese troops south.

Your border defences during that war numbered 100,000 men and at the time, the Vietnamese had about a million men under arms. The numbers say otherwise even if your intent did not.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

If their purpose was to deter Soviet Union, why afer they captured the first major city of Lang Son, they declared "objective completed" and withdrew?

You are confusing Operational Objectives with Strategic Objectives.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

Was it not true that after that Vietnam had become really a thread and a counter attack might occur from the second line of defense? And because of that they had to station a large amount of troops on Vietnam border?

Don't quite understand what you're getting here but the decision for war on the Chinese side has been clearly detailed out.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

Only point I can see is maybe China wanted to make allies with Western countries against Soviet Union. They had to do something to prove it.

Prove what? Nobody had any illusion that China was going to win a fight against Mosow. All the Chinese could have done is to show just how bloody it was going to be.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

And as somebody said, attacking Vietnam is the same with attacking Soviet Union at that time. But it was more like to provoke Soviet Union to attack them than to deter.

Considering that the Soviets didn't attack China but Afghanistan instead, Vietnam was not important enough for them.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

Look at the logic: Vietnam attacked Cambodia, China attacked Vietnam and Soviet Union might attack China. What kind of deterence was that?

If you want logic, then 10,000 Chinese troops in Cambodia in a static defence of Khmer Rouge camp would do more to evict Vietnam from Cambodia than that war did.

It demonstrated an obvious thing: the different importance level of two fronts and at the end it showed nothing but the weakness of PLA at that time.
The demonstrating thing makes some sense as gunnut said if I look to Europe theatre but it is still far from prevent Soviet Union to attack China if Soviet Union REALLY wanted.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

It demonstrated an obvious thing: the different importance level of two fronts and at the end it showed nothing but the weakness of PLA at that time.

It showed a tactical weakness but a strategic victory - the the Soviet Army can expect no help to kill a very determined PLA.

Originally Posted by VietPhuong

The demonstrating thing makes some sense as gunnut said if I look to Europe theatre but it is still far from prevent Soviet Union to attack China if Soviet Union REALLY wanted.

At the cost of any hope of military victory in Europe.