That was entirely unnecessary and missing the point.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
Then it’s not a valid analysis.
What question are you even trying to answer here? Because whatever it is seems to be entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about.
I just realized you wrote the infuriatingly wrong claim, “North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.” No, dumbass, they didn’t skimp on equipment because they were “willing to accept casualties,” they didn’t have money for equipment and fought tooth and nail with everything they had to avoid colonial subjugation. It wasn’t some kind of policy choice.
Looking at just combatant deaths:
Now look at combatants and civilians:
So now let’s look at the Vietnam war and military expenditure for each side:
Interpretation:
Tie it all together… in total war against a near peer, casualty rates are significantly higher. 50x for the Red Army in WWII, 17x for the Wehrmacht.
In asymmetric war, casualty rates are lower overall. And total GDP expenditure is significantly lower.
I don’t want to ignore the human cost here. But we’re talking about specific quantifiable metrics here, not the emotional trauma
That was entirely unnecessary and missing the point.
Then it’s not a valid analysis.
What question are you even trying to answer here? Because whatever it is seems to be entirely unrelated to anything I was talking about.
I just realized you wrote the infuriatingly wrong claim, “North Vietnam traded manpower for resources, accepting high losses.” No, dumbass, they didn’t skimp on equipment because they were “willing to accept casualties,” they didn’t have money for equipment and fought tooth and nail with everything they had to avoid colonial subjugation. It wasn’t some kind of policy choice.