I think those are some of the very factors that would influence the Russians. They know that with us out of the way they can basically do whatever they want and nobody can stop them. Without the US, all the republics that broke away would have no choice but to take their place under Russian dominance, and all their minorities would lose power. Think about what Russia would do in the Arctic Ocean if it didn?t have to contend with America. Canada certainly couldn?t stop them from claiming all the resources there. True, they don?t see eye to eye with the Chinese on many factors, but they feel they can handle them and not us.

Facing the US in a war, China would try to draw North Korea and Russia into the conflict. This could easily turn into east vs west. The whole thing could become the most historically significant war ever fought.

So, based on this discussion, is it correct to conclude that we have the military capabilities, but are not politically prepared to defend Japan in a war against China?

Thank you for your replies, gentlemen. They are insightful, but I have to challenge a few things. I have been in the military for over 21 years as a Combat Arms soldier and I am here to tell you that prior to the start of the insurgency in late 2003 there was no training or classroom work done with regular line soldiers on counterinsurgency and no doctrine was propagated prior to the publication of the new COIN manual in 2005.  We made it up as we went along in 2003-2005.  No doubt we made plenty of mistakes but I think we did quite well given the conditions we worked under and that we were fighting a war none of us had trained for.That is my 2?.Scout, during my time as a military engineer we studied the tactics of the Viet Cong up and down, since their booby traps were cunning and effective. They managed to realize that placing a bomb under a pile of manure with a wooden stick at the top meant that American soldiers would kick the stick while Vietnamese boys would walk right past it. This is just one example, there were many more, but the point is, that if there are commanding officers out there who aren't teaching based on Vietnam then their men should be asking them to or should take it upon themselves to learn.Now, Vulture, how can you say that 58000 casualties compared to over a million is irrelevant? If you want to compare this to baseball, then I'd say we were striking them out more, scoring more runs cause we won all the major battles, and we had them on the ropes. We had to forfeit the game, but that doesn't make this irrelevant. What we need to look at is why the Vietnamese were willing to take that type of liking and keep coming back for more. I'll tell you why; because they knew we would not do the same. That is what we have to change. Otherwise, when the next Vietnam comes, and it's only a matter of time until it does, we'll be beaten before we start. This may be the whole reason the Taliban don't let up. There are political and other problems in the west, but if the Vietnamese were able to overcome their circumstances to win that war, why can't we overcome our obstacles?Now, yes, the scars are deep, and there are stupid people in society like that woman at the airport, but I hope that people reading this thread come out of it with the knowledge that to die fighting for what you believe in is far better than to do it in an old age home, especially if the conditions in that home are dictated by foreign countries. Skiguy, I agree that we have to learn about other cultures to make allies. But, as you can tell, I'm on a different time zone from you all. I'm in Asia, where I see a lot of locals asking foreigners details about their cultures while smiling, but their intent is to find weaknesses to be used against the west later on.

I think that the U.S. effectively was "winning" if you look at something like kill ratio, but obviously it did not "win" if we're talking about the larger point of war, which is the alteration of (geo)political powers.  I think that the effects of Vietnam on America are still being determined.  Yes, it has shaken the American populace's toleration of war, and this has been made manifest in some of the political and military choices made since then (the election of Obama, and the reason why Bush 1 did not attempt to pursue Sadaam Hussein in 1991).  I think this is a bit different than the mere "shaking of confidence" within America.  But definitely, Vietnam forced Americans to weigh with careful consideration the loss of life on one hand, and the immediate gains reaped from this loss of life on the other.  While Americans may be able to tolerate the loss of life in retaliation against the Taliban in 2001, they have been less tolerant of the loss of life in Iraq due to the confusing nature of the short-term benefit that was achieved in return.  Certainly, nothing even approaching the 50k lost in Vietnam would be permitted by the American populace now, unless the objectives were directly and immediately connected to something vital to America's existence.

So the current administration and the mess in Iraq are both long term influences of Vietnam. This is a very deep analysis; it looks like you?ve really thought about it. And yes, 58 000 American casualties compared to the 1 100 000 North Vietnamese, not to mention the non-military casualties indicates that the US was winning. I?d like to add, though, that the liberation of Kuwait and the original overpowering of the Taliban would not have been nearly as rapid if the American army hadn?t had the experiences of Vietnam under their belt. A lot of classroom hours are spent studying the tactics used by the Viet Cong, and how to counter them. So, while we now have less tolerance for loss of life, we also know how to preserve it more, and have better ways to come up with quick victories.  Donroc, were you there? Your answer sounds very similar to what a lot of veterans I?ve spoken with have said. They felt cheated and betrayed. The reasons why are obvious, and make me wonder how many people are psychologically still there. Lee Bai wrote that soldiers can never leave the battlefield after the war is over. I sometimes talk to younger people and am thrown back at the importance they put on clothing, popularity and celebrities, while feeling that national defense is something to be taken for granted because someone else will deal with it. Yeah, ending the draft hurt us more than anyone anticipated. Vulture, I?d like to add something to your comments. We need to be more weary of locals in foreign lands. An interest in North American language, culture and technology, doesn?t equal an ally. As we found out in Vietnam, many apparently simple and harmless looking people want to get to know us to find our weaknesses because they either envy North American dominance or want to defeat us. And, gentlemen, casual acquaintances need to be taken more seriously. When you consider the children from American fathers that were left behind, and the discrimination and abuse they faced, not to mentioned the way they were used as tickets into the US, only to be dumped after green cards were acquired, I hope young service men today are all aware of that.

So, Donald, what would you say Obama would do if the North Korans attacked the South? You know, China has an interest in this, too. Kim Jong-il?s older son, Kim Jong-nam, is living in China, and when the younger brother Kim Jong-un set out to assassinate his older sibling, Chinese agents prevented it. Apparently the Chinese feel they could obtain power there through Kim Jong-nam.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/10/13/2010101300417.html