Anti-Taiwan Strategic Cannon

[shin_getter]

With Taiwan coast being under 150km from China, and huge numbers of targets that needs cost effective servicing, the logical solution is development of effective long range cannons.

"Thankfully", 100km 155mm cannons and movable 1000km ~280mm-ish cannons are now considered quite feasible, and the physics was established with 60s HARP project anyhow. For the tactical role in question a mere 230km would be threshold and 300km objective.

So the only task here is to find the optimal design.

Some main design considerations:
1. Should fit into TBM dug tunnels for secrecy and survivability. Mobility is helpful, but low cost and high throughput for "first strike" weapon can be an alternative.
2. Total expected throw weight per dollar over campaign is to be optimized
3. Minimum projectile payload (after guidance systems) should equal an standard 155mm shell
4. Hardkill interception is a non-issue. Its best if Taiwan bankrupt themselves with interceptors.
*. Super fancy additional requirement: the leader have demanded the development to be top secret, so large visible firing is to be curtailed

--------
So what design solution would be best from the rough requirements?

To list concepts for this category of weapon:
1. Multichamber gun
2. Sabot system
3. Rocket Assisted projectiles
4. Ramjet/Scramjet projectiles
5. Glide projectiles
6. Light gas gun
7. Electric propulsion

--------
And the additional question: what are the odds of seeing something like this actually showing up!

 

[sferrin]

Zero. Next.

 

[uk 75]

If you were Mr Xi would you
a) exploit your place as the second most powerful economy on Earth to secure Taiwan by slowly buying the place up in various ways.
b) blast the place to bits and reduce its value to nil.
No, I'm not sure either

 

[Dilandu]

Simply not practical. Just the average long-range rocket artillery could have this range for a fraction of cost, complexity and (quite important) weight of the supergun. Modern Chinese MRLS of WS family have a range of more than 150 km already.

 

[Dilandu]

If you were Mr Xi would you
a) exploit your place as the second most powerful economy on Earth to secure Taiwan by slowly buying the place up in various ways.
b) blast the place to bits and reduce its value to nil.
No, I'm not sure either

c) Blast their military bases, land a two-prong invasion by amphibious landings from East and West simultaneously, and after securing the beachheads suggest an immediate cessation of hostilities as soon as Taiwan admit itself to be "autonomous part of China" and publicly refuse American help.

 

[shin_getter]

Simply not practical. Just the average long-range rocket artillery could have this range for a fraction of cost, complexity and (quite important) weight of the supergun. Modern Chinese MRLS of WS family have a range of more than 150 km already.

Many pretty questionable very large/long range artillery projects do get proposed/funded somehow, including but not limited to:
Paris Gun (130km range on wwI tech)
Dora, Karl
K-12, V-3 (with two ground armies invading at the same time)
Babylon Gun (what could Iraq do with a giant fixed gun without guidance packages?)
155mm liquid propellent gun (160km? range)
AGWSTP -> Advanced Gun System: LRLAP (150? 190km range) Naval Railgun ~180km? range
155mm ramjet (100?km range)
Strategic Long Range Cannon (1600km+ range), the weapon proposal that provoked this post

Then there are things like mounting 14" rifles Winnie and Pooh to shoot across the Strait of Dover

And many of the developments here happened after perfectly functional rocket/aircraft delivery solutions existed.
----
In any case I don't think a very long range cannon is a especially difficult thing to develop for for the 2nd biggest economy in the 21th century, its not like HARP broke people's budgets. Whether lifecycle costs actually work out is of course a completely different matter, but investment based on powerpoints and completion is based on sunk costs (assuming normal gov.t behavior), so ultimately it may not matter. Proposing a system that have high upfront but lower marginal costs seems pretty damned effective in attracting government money.

 

[jsport]

Chinese Supergun?

Satellite imagery reveals mystery 'supergun' in Chinese desert Sean O'Connor, Indianapolis - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly Satellite imagery reveals mystery 'supergun' in Chinese desert - IHS Jane's 360 Satellite imagery has revealed two unusually large artillery pieces, measuring...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

 

[Dilandu]

Paris Gun (130km range on wwI tech)

Were designed long before era of long-range rockets; even Laval nozzle was not used in WW1 rocketry.

Dora, Karl

Were designed as siege guns in anticipation of dealing with super-hardened fortifications.

K-12

Just an attempt to get long-range gun to fire across Channel.

V-3

Attempt into stationary superweapon in situation of total Luftwaffe degradation.

Babylon Gun (what could Iraq do with a giant fixed gun without guidance packages?)

Bombard area target - it was deterrence weapon against Israel and Saudi.

 

[uk 75]

If you were Mr Xi would you
a) exploit your place as the second most powerful economy on Earth to secure Taiwan by slowly buying the place up in various ways.
b) blast the place to bits and reduce its value to nil.
No, I'm not sure either

c) Blast their military bases, land a two-prong invasion by amphibious landings from East and West simultaneously, and after securing the beachheads suggest an immediate cessation of hostilities as soon as Taiwan admit itself to be "autonomous part of China" and publicly refuse American help.

Dilandu only replying because there is no suitable icon. Sounds probable I admit. If it did happen I predict
a) Biden will huff and puff but like Afghanistan its not going to get US intervention.
b) Japan and S Korea will start/continue acquiring nuclear weapons of various types.
c) UK and EU will make gestures but do nothing.

 

[Dilandu]

a) Biden will huff and puff but like Afghanistan its not going to get US intervention.
b) Japan and S Korea will start/continue acquiring nuclear weapons of various types.
c) UK and EU will make gestures but do nothing.

Yep, truth is, that Taiwan position by now is pretty much unsustainable. Unless a very significant part of US and allies (mainly Japanese and Australian) military forces would be deployed in advance to Western Pacific, there is basically no scenario in which Taiwan could realistically hold its own. The force balance is just too inclined toward China. Taiwan have SOME chances to hold until help arrived before - when China could attack it only from western direction, across the Strait - but rapid growth of Chinese navy, especially its amphibious capabilities, basically ensured that Taiwan would be subjected to two-pronged attack. And Taiwan simply do not have reserves to fight on two fronts simultaneously.

So, essentially the only chance Taiwan have is if USN+IJN+HMAS would be able to defeat Chinese amphibious efforts from the East. Considering that China would have enormous "home" advantages and vast numerical superiority due to the ability of deploying its numerous light units - and also that all major US naval and air bases in region would be subjected to missile barrage as soon as US decided to interfere - to defeat PLAN without impractically big losses would require enormous naval concentration. Concentration, arranged long before the conflict itself.

 

[uk 75]

Dilandu
Although I think it unlikely, there is the precedent of West Berlin.
The US could deploy a tripwire force to Taiwan either on land or at sea.
As with West Berlin the sole function of these forces would be to signal willingness to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Taiwan.
However, there is no emotional bond between the US and Taiwan as there was with the Berliners. And Biden is no Jack Kennedy.

 

[sferrin]

Dilandu
Although I think it unlikely, there is the precedent of West Berlin.
The US could deploy a tripwire force to Taiwan either on land or at sea.
As with West Berlin the sole function of these forces would be to signal willingness to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Taiwan.
However, there is no emotional bond between the US and Taiwan as there was with the Berliners. And Biden is no Jack Kennedy.

The US isn't going to do squat, especially with this administration.

 

[uk 75]

On the downside for China, such a move would isolate it still further. Though it might not need them, it has hardly any allies and most of its neighbours are hostile or like Russia and North Korea only interested in what China can do for them.
Coupled with bubbling resentment about Covid the economic consequences for China might be bitter.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Alternate Chinese strategy:
China is dumping 'human waste' in South China Sea

1: Toxify the sea around Taiwan and others.
2: ...
3: Profit! World conquest!

 

[Dilandu]

The US could deploy a tripwire force to Taiwan either on land or at sea.

There are problem here: US did not recognize Taiwan. So essentially if US deploy any "tripwire force" here, formally it would be invasion on Chinese territory. I.e. China would have perfect legal reason to "defend itself", and US would formally be agressor here.

US leadership really messed up when they admitted that Taiwan is part of China. Granted, they never thought that China would become such powerful that it would start to be a problem. Still, its an awful legal mess, with no good solution.

 

[Dilandu]

On the downside for China, such a move would isolate it still further. Though it might not need them, it has hardly any allies and most of its neighbours are hostile or like Russia and North Korea only interested in what China can do for them.
Coupled with bubbling resentment about Covid the economic consequences for China might be bitter

Maybe... but with China producing more than a half of world industrial output, nobody is exactly willing to spoil the relations with them TOO MUCH. Especially in such confusing case as Taiwan, where nobody actually knew who is right and who is wrong. So, I supect that most of the nations not directly involved would react like "its outrage, and we TOTALLY demand additional 0,5% of profit from the lucrative deal that China just suggested to us".

 

[Orionblamblam]

US leadership really messed up when they admitted that Taiwan is part of China. Granted, they never thought that China would become such powerful that it would start to be a problem. Still, its an awful legal mess, with no good solution.

So long as everyone agrees that the government in Taiwan is the legitimate government of China, and that the CCP is an illegitimate junta... hey, it's all good.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

a) Biden will huff and puff but like Afghanistan its not going to get US intervention.
b) Japan and S Korea will start/continue acquiring nuclear weapons of various types.
c) UK and EU will make gestures but do nothing.

Yep, truth is, that Taiwan position by now is pretty much unsustainable. Unless a very significant part of US and allies (mainly Japanese and Australian) military forces would be deployed in advance to Western Pacific, there is basically no scenario in which Taiwan could realistically hold its own. The force balance is just too inclined toward China. Taiwan have SOME chances to hold until help arrived before - when China could attack it only from western direction, across the Strait - but rapid growth of Chinese navy, especially its amphibious capabilities, basically ensured that Taiwan would be subjected to two-pronged attack. And Taiwan simply do not have reserves to fight on two fronts simultaneously.

So, essentially the only chance Taiwan have is if USN+IJN+HMAS would be able to defeat Chinese amphibious efforts from the East. Considering that China would have enormous "home" advantages and vast numerical superiority due to the ability of deploying its numerous light units - and also that all major US naval and air bases in region would be subjected to missile barrage as soon as US decided to interfere - to defeat PLAN without impractically big losses would require enormous naval concentration. Concentration, arranged long before the conflict itself.

Vietnam, while very alone, gave China a spectacular kicking in 79.

Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dilandu]

Vietnam, while very alone give China a spectacular kicking in 79.

And?

Not to mention, that A - Vietnam have TONS of experience after the long war with USA, and B - both sides tried not to escalate, thats why China did not employ anything more than basic ground forces.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Vietnam, while very alone give China a spectacular kicking in 79.

And?

Not to mention, that A - Vietnam have TONS of experience after the long war with USA, and B - both sides tried not to escalate, thats why China did not employ anything more than basic ground forces.

I suspect that if China decided to take Vietnam *now* things would go rather differently. However, at least so far they've been expanding through osmosis and bullying rather than outright military conquest. Who knows how long that will last, however.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Even with Vietnam being tooled up and familiar with what was expected, the majority of knowledgeable observers at the time wouldn’t have rated their chances. Mig 25 pilot, Victor Balenko noted the that when he was deployed to the Soviet Sino border, a senior officer told them that if the Chinese attacked and the Soviets used every means at their disposal (nukes) to kill a million a day, the war would go on for three years. Even Victor and his comrades expected to be overrun in quite rapid fashion.

Admittedly the Chinese objective of the Sino/Vietnam conflict were never clear. Some have expressed the view that if the initial actions went well then a rapid full scale country take over was on the cards. However it didn’t, the Vietnamese manage one comprehensive ambush after another, inflicting so many casualties that the Chinese clearing system collapsed and officers resorted to euthanising large numbers of their own injured to restore a functioning system. Hence Chinese low morale was close to handing a very decisive victory to Vietnam, hence a rapid disengagement/withdraw was the only option. So in order to save face the Chinese came up with the quick slap story.

It really shows what’s possible against seemingly impossible odds, Yes in the days of smart munitions it might be different, but in the case of Taiwan these are deployed by both sides. In the end an aggressor must do the boots on the ground thing, which inherently means absorbing a heavy, potentially long term loss of life. In recent years this just hasn’t worked anywhere….. but yes this sad fact hasn’t stopped a few from trying.

 

[martinbayer]

I get the distinct impression that this thread is based on the premise of a solution looking for a problem.

 

[donnage99]

Dilandu
Although I think it unlikely, there is the precedent of West Berlin.
The US could deploy a tripwire force to Taiwan either on land or at sea.
As with West Berlin the sole function of these forces would be to signal willingness to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Taiwan.
However, there is no emotional bond between the US and Taiwan as there was with the Berliners. And Biden is no Jack Kennedy.

The US isn't going to do squat, especially with this administration.

Or the last. Or any admin in the forseeable future. Unless neoCons take back the republican party, which is unrealistic given trump's anti global alliance populist appeal in the party. Alot of young republicans with anti war america first mindset are running for offices.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Hey, war breaks out in east Asia, I'm all for the US staying the frak out of it. Hell, my "Zaneverse" sci-fi stories have as an unspoken back story the middle part of the 21st century being an extended bloodbath called the Pan-Asian Wars. I look forward to India vs China vs Japan vs Noth Korea vs South Korea. Throw in some Pakistan vs India, some China vs Russia, Israel vs Arabia, Iran vs Iraq...

 

[Dilandu]

Hey, war breaks out in east Asia, I'm all for the US staying the frak out of it

Of course the whole problem is that US dominance in politics would crumble, as well as significant part of US economical power (which is no longer based on real production but on financial operations)...

 

[zen]

A word of warning folks...

In was back in the 1980's that the CIA itself said Taiwan was just a year away from producing it's own nuclear weapon.

In a situation where the US might trade Taiwan for good relations with China. Only the presence of a domestic nuclear arsenal will prevent this.

South Korea, triggered ire and international condemnation when it used a laser to enriched uranium. Obviously a South Korean nuclear weapons program is well within their capabilities.
Again it would be driven by fear of betrayal from the US.

Japanese politicians have espoused their own nuclear weapons program. Currently this doesn't have much support. But change the circumstances and who knows how quickly they could assemble a demonstrator.

 

[shin_getter]

I get the distinct impression that this thread is based on the premise of a solution looking for a problem.

This thread is inspired on people talking up the naval rail gun. If a "ground bombardment" railgun is good for the USN (with no significant coastal bombardment mission in the last half century and none on the horizon) than what about the faction with both the resources and a contested landing strategic goal at the same time? This, and the fact that the distance involved is actually of the right dimensions for similar technology.

While, say, a 300ton railgun (railgun on railroads is railrailgun? ) or some fixed installation is a big target that is likely to be very expensive and slow/immobile compared to MRLS TEL, it is actually cheap and well defended (when behind a wall of entire nation worth of AA systems) compared to ships actually having to cross the body of water. Better the Taiwanese spend limited PGM shooting at the artillery piece than kill escorts and sink troop ships that could actually make the invasion plan fail. The war is decided when Taiwan run out missiles and other firepower to stop the invasion fleet, shooting non-decisive targets just weakens their own position.

That said, there is more ways to skin a cat and this system is pretty bad if Americans get involved. Still, there are worst projects that did get built and I'd think it is not sufficiently absurd that a champion at high places can't push through, so why not make a post?

------
Some of the other part of the thread is based on this:

【破解千彈襲台】共軍1370枚導彈襲台　國軍兵推成功反制 - 鏡週刊 Mirror Media

兩岸關係持續緊張，日前一架美軍C-17運輸機搭載3名美國參議員抵台，宣布捐助台灣75萬劑新冠肺炎疫苗，更讓對立情勢升高。本刊掌握，5月中共曾派出武裝直升機低飛掠海接近台灣，引起國安高層關注；另因疫情延後至9月舉行的漢光演習，日前已先完成複合式兵棋推演，其中模擬共軍以1千3百多枚飛彈、前後20多波襲擊台灣，國軍不僅成功守...

www.mirrormedia.mg

【破解千彈襲台】共軍1370枚導彈襲台　國軍兵推成功反制 2021.06.16

Translation: "[Cracking a Thousand Bomb Attacks on Taiwan] The Communist Army’s 1370 missiles attacked Taiwan. The National Army successfully launched a countermeasure (In Hanguang Composite Planning Exercise)"

(OMG, missiles 'so expensive' obviously the Commies would only have so much~)

Then there is persistent talks of tactics like having Apaches beat back not-AEGIS (just use longbow~) and Abrams push ZTDs into teh sea~ being floated..... might as well have fun

 

[sferrin]

Hey, war breaks out in east Asia, I'm all for the US staying the frak out of it. Hell, my "Zaneverse" sci-fi stories have as an unspoken back story the middle part of the 21st century being an extended bloodbath called the Pan-Asian Wars. I look forward to India vs China vs Japan vs Noth Korea vs South Korea. Throw in some Pakistan vs India, some China vs Russia, Israel vs Arabia, Iran vs Iraq...

Only down side is eventually someone will come out on top (if everybody isn't dead over there). Then they'll be looking our direction.

 

[sferrin]

Or the last. Or any admin in the forseeable future. Unless neoCons take back the republican party, which is unrealistic given trump's anti global alliance populist appeal in the party. Alot of young republicans with anti war america first mindset are running for offices.

Trump wasn't anti-alliance. He just wanted actual allies instead of those who didn't want to help carry the responsibilities. Who would have a problem with that? And we SHOULD be out of useless wars or, at the least, be willing to WIN the wars we get in. If they're worth getting in they're worth winning, no?

 

[Dilandu]

In a situation where the US might trade Taiwan for good relations with China. Only the presence of a domestic nuclear arsenal will prevent this.

Frankly, it would most likely be a justification for Chinese invasion. Again: Taiwan is not recognized as independent entity even by USA. Any attempt of Taiwan to develop nuclear weapon would essentially be classified as an attempt of rogue state to create nuclear weapon. While South Korea and Japan may eventually create their own nuclear arsenals, any attempt to do so by Taiwan would be... disastrous.

 

[Dilandu]

Trump wasn't anti-alliance. He just wanted actual allies instead of those who didn't want to help carry the responsibilities. Who would have a problem with that? And we SHOULD be out of useless wars or, at the least, be willing to WIN the wars we get in. If they're worth getting in they're worth winning, no?

Welcome to the club of former empires, Amerikansky comrades.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This forum section wasn't intended to be a place for users to invent their own projects, but to post and discuss ones they found in publications of various types. This is a "Bar" topic at best, and is going seriously off the rails.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Hey, war breaks out in east Asia, I'm all for the US staying the frak out of it

Of course the whole problem is that US dominance in politics would crumble, as well as significant part of US economical power (which is no longer based on real production but on financial operations)...

China goes bugnuts and launches wars like this... the issues you raise will remain whether the US involves itself or not. Difference being whether the US emerges with it's cities as craters or not.

 

[donnage99]

Or the last. Or any admin in the forseeable future. Unless neoCons take back the republican party, which is unrealistic given trump's anti global alliance populist appeal in the party. Alot of young republicans with anti war america first mindset are running for offices.

Trump wasn't anti-alliance. He just wanted actual allies instead of those who didn't want to help carry the responsibilities. Who would have a problem with that? And we SHOULD be out of useless wars or, at the least, be willing to WIN the wars we get in. If they're worth getting in they're worth winning, no?

We are not talking about your or my opinion. it's about trump's opinion. trump would never sacrifice potentially tens of thousands of US troops to defend a foreign country against a superpower. Treaty, alliance and promises be damned. that's clearly his philosophy from the start. he had no problem leaving the kurds behind, who have done more for US than taiwan has ever been arguably.

 

[Archibald]

a) Biden will huff and puff but like Afghanistan its not going to get US intervention.
b) Japan and S Korea will start/continue acquiring nuclear weapons of various types.
c) UK and EU will make gestures but do nothing.

Yep, truth is, that Taiwan position by now is pretty much unsustainable. Unless a very significant part of US and allies (mainly Japanese and Australian) military forces would be deployed in advance to Western Pacific, there is basically no scenario in which Taiwan could realistically hold its own. The force balance is just too inclined toward China. Taiwan have SOME chances to hold until help arrived before - when China could attack it only from western direction, across the Strait - but rapid growth of Chinese navy, especially its amphibious capabilities, basically ensured that Taiwan would be subjected to two-pronged attack. And Taiwan simply do not have reserves to fight on two fronts simultaneously.

So, essentially the only chance Taiwan have is if USN+IJN+HMAS would be able to defeat Chinese amphibious efforts from the East. Considering that China would have enormous "home" advantages and vast numerical superiority due to the ability of deploying its numerous light units - and also that all major US naval and air bases in region would be subjected to missile barrage as soon as US decided to interfere - to defeat PLAN without impractically big losses would require enormous naval concentration. Concentration, arranged long before the conflict itself.

Vietnam, while very alone, gave China a spectacular kicking in 79.

Sino-Vietnamese War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Bottom line: there are two people on Earth you'd better NEVER, EVER mess around - even if you're one of the world top military armed to the teeth including nuclear weapons.
These two are
a) Vietnameses
b) Afghans
Then again, the only fighting area worse than the Afghan mountains may be the Vietnamese jungle.
Which makes the Soviet decision of invading Afghanistan only 4 years after US retreat from Vietnam even more idiotic, when you think about it.

"Hey, look ! Afghanistan looks like another Vietnam !
"You mean, the country that managed to humiliate the Americans, to our great delight ?
"Yes.
"Let's immediate invade it and gets humiliated even worse than the Americans !"
(facepalm)

What is surprising is that, of all people, Andropov allowed that to happen. Not that I have any admiration for that criminal: just that as the head of KGB since 1967 he had a fast-decaying Brezhnev-ite USSR society under a powerful lense... and yet he allowed a costly war to happen. Then again, he also allowed Gorbachev to happen, so maybe he was just nut rather than machiavellian.

I disgress... back to shelling Taiwan with a supergun.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Vietnam did not beat the US. The US kept the North from conquering the South, which was the point of the American involvement (*not* the conquest of the North). North Vietnam was beaten to the peace table, with the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973. War was *over* to Americas satisfaction. War over, the US left. Communists being commies, they just couldn't help themselves and re-invaded the South. President Ford asked Congress to send forces to fight and Congress said "no."

 

[Arjen]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YmT0_hKSUrw

 

[kaiserd]

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Vietnam did not beat the US. The US kept the North from conquering the South, which was the point of the American involvement (*not* the conquest of the North). North Vietnam was beaten to the peace table, with the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973. War was *over* to Americas satisfaction. War over, the US left. Communists being commies, they just couldn't help themselves and re-invaded the South. President Ford asked Congress to send forces to fight and Congress said "no."

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Vietnam did not beat the US. The US kept the North from conquering the South, which was the point of the American involvement (*not* the conquest of the North). North Vietnam was beaten to the peace table, with the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973. War was *over* to Americas satisfaction. War over, the US left. Communists being commies, they just couldn't help themselves and re-invaded the South. President Ford asked Congress to send forces to fight and Congress said "no."

A long discredited false version of history (the Nixon/ Kissinger arse-covering propaganda version).
I would encourage other contributors to look up the actual history of this themselves.
This whole thread is a garbage fire.

 

[Lc89]

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Vietnam did not beat the US. The US kept the North from conquering the South, which was the point of the American involvement (*not* the conquest of the North). North Vietnam was beaten to the peace table, with the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973. War was *over* to Americas satisfaction. War over, the US left. Communists being commies, they just couldn't help themselves and re-invaded the South. President Ford asked Congress to send forces to fight and Congress said "no."

The Vietnamese beat - within the span of merely 25 years - 3 of the 5 top world militaries: France, USA, and China.

Vietnam did not beat the US. The US kept the North from conquering the South, which was the point of the American involvement (*not* the conquest of the North). North Vietnam was beaten to the peace table, with the Paris Peace Accords signed in 1973. War was *over* to Americas satisfaction. War over, the US left. Communists being commies, they just couldn't help themselves and re-invaded the South. President Ford asked Congress to send forces to fight and Congress said "no."

A long discredited false version of history (the Nixon/ Kissinger arse-covering propaganda version).
I would encourage other contributors to look up the actual history of this themselves.
This whole thread is a garbage fire.

Fake.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My warning fell on deaf ears. Locked.