The worse enemy the US fought in the 20th century

Least competent: Iraq 1991 (sort of an obvious choice)

Most overrated: Ho Chi Minh - Got a lot of the credit that belonged to:

Most underrated: Vo Nguyen Giap - Understood, long before the Americans even began to consider it, that all he had to do was NOT LOSE. Almost blew it once or twice (Da Nang possibly his biggest error) but won.

I actually think that Peng Dehuai was the most under-rated military general that the US faced. The Chinese pushed the US back from the Yalu river to Seoul, forced Truman to declare a state of emergency and broke MacArthur in the process as he threatened to go rouge/nuclear. Peng did this with Mao breathing down his neck, with mostly only infantry (though highly experienced infantry) with little to no aircover, few artillery pieces and terrible logistics.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I actually think that Peng Dehuai was the most under-rated military general that the US faced. The Chinese pushed the US back from the Yalu river to Seoul, forced Truman to declare a state of emergency and broke MacArthur in the process as he threatened to go rouge/nuclear. Peng did this with Mao breathing down his neck, with mostly only infantry (though highly experienced infantry) with little to no aircover, few artillery pieces and terrible logistics.

Not a bad choice actually. He did have the advantage, however, of his opponent chasing eternal glory then the enemy.
 
I Have to wonder who do you think was the most successful and toughest opponent that the US fought?

The Germans, bar none, were the toughest. The US needed massive assistance from its coalition partners to take down the Reich, and that was in a war in which the Pentagon had all but carte blanche to spend American lives and dollars without a thought, and virtually the only tactic they weren't allowed to use was the employment of prohibited biological and chemical agents against enemy personnel. I don't believe that the United States could have successfully invaded and defeated Nazi Germany on its own.
 
I actually think that Peng Dehuai was the most under-rated military general that the US faced. The Chinese pushed the US back from the Yalu river to Seoul, forced Truman to declare a state of emergency and broke MacArthur in the process as he threatened to go rouge/nuclear. Peng did this with Mao breathing down his neck, with mostly only infantry (though highly experienced infantry) with little to no aircover, few artillery pieces and terrible logistics.

Peng Dehua was reasonably good, given the context of the times, but he didn't fare that well once Matthew Ridgway was calling the shots at EUSAK. Getting his lightly armed army bogged down in a static war of attrition against an enemy armed with vastly superior, mechanized firepower showed his distinct limitations ans those of the Chinese war machine.
 
Terrorists are a broad amalgamation, but are a challenge because they can hide in plain site, one person can do lots of damage, and US sensibilities limit certain actions (otherwise nukes would be involved -- Tehran, Kabul, Baghdad, etc.).

Unless you're going down the "make a desert and call it peace" route then nukes are not a good way to fight terrorists. Leaving aside the moral and ethical issues, indiscriminate slaughter is likely to produce more terrorist sympathisers, not fewer, and the people whose deaths would really weaken the terrorist movement are often not in the cities anyway. Nuking a city is basically the ultimate expression of 1940s strategic bombing, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of that approach. It is not a universal panacea.
 

jahenders

Banned
I never suggested it was. However, it would likely have been considered in a few cases if our sensibilities allowed.

First, Tehran. Revolution, US hostages seized and held. Imagine an angry Carter (or, more likely, Reagan) saying, "I have nuclear missiles prepared and targeted at Tehran and several other key Iranian sites. You have 4 hours to release the hostages or we fire. If you kill them, prepare for a rain of fire"

Second, Kabul. 9/11, Osama in Afghanistan, Taliban defiant and refusing to give him up. Bush says, "You have 2 hours to agree to give Osama to us and 12 hours to get him to us or several cities will be hit with Nukes, including your home province."

Third, Baghdad. Post 9/11, suspected terrorist ties and WMD in Iraq, we've been patrolling against them for years. Instead of invading, Bush says, "Nuclear weapons are trained on several key cities. Turn over Saddam, his sons, and the rest of this list, or you will enter the stone age."

None of these might really have been a good idea, but we have some pretty good history suggesting that the terrorists usually respect strength and look for weakness and few things say, "Strength" like your enemy's cities burning and glowing.

Unless you're going down the "make a desert and call it peace" route then nukes are not a good way to fight terrorists. Leaving aside the moral and ethical issues, indiscriminate slaughter is likely to produce more terrorist sympathisers, not fewer, and the people whose deaths would really weaken the terrorist movement are often not in the cities anyway. Nuking a city is basically the ultimate expression of 1940s strategic bombing, and has all the strengths and weaknesses of that approach. It is not a universal panacea.
 
I actually think that Peng Dehuai was the most under-rated military general that the US faced. The Chinese pushed the US back from the Yalu river to Seoul, forced Truman to declare a state of emergency and broke MacArthur in the process as he threatened to go rouge/nuclear. Peng did this with Mao breathing down his neck, with mostly only infantry (though highly experienced infantry) with little to no aircover, few artillery pieces and terrible logistics.

He did the best with what he had available to him and his resources were fairly meagre to begin with. I have always wondered how he would have performed with a more balanced force at his disposal.

His treatment during the Cultural Revolution was disgrace IMO as well.
 
I never suggested it was. However, it would likely have been considered in a few cases if our sensibilities allowed.

<snip>

None of these might really have been a good idea, but we have some pretty good history suggesting that the terrorists usually respect strength and look for weakness and few things say, "Strength" like your enemy's cities burning and glowing.

And if they're not your enemies before you nuke them, they certainly will be afterwards. It seems to me that there's a fundamental problem of attribution with respect to terrorist activity. The things you CAN hit with a nuke - cities, in these examples - are not those responsible for the terrorist acts in the first place. The people who ARE responsible may or may not be overawed by such a display of destruction, my money is on "not" but its possible to argue both ways. The one thing you can guarantee though is that nuking cities will result in a groundswell of opinion against those who do it, which will likely more than replace any terrorists you kill in the attacks. Don't forget that terrorism has a long tradition of trying to incite overreaction on the part of their opponents, for exactly those reasons. America did a lot of harm to itself and a lot of good to it's opponents by it's actions in Iraq this century, and I don't think nuking the country would have improved the situation. Basically nukes seem counter-productive as anti-terrorist weapons.
 
This. Not just in the "We have met the enemy and they are us" kind of way...but also the ACW. Proportionally more casualties in four years than in any other conflict we have ever been involved in, IIRC.

The Civil War would probably rank as the worst conflict America has ever been involved in personally besides World War II; but this thread is about strictly 20th century enemies.
 
I never suggested it was. However, it would likely have been considered in a few cases if our sensibilities allowed.

First, Tehran. Revolution, US hostages seized and held. Imagine an angry Carter (or, more likely, Reagan) saying, "I have nuclear missiles prepared and targeted at Tehran and several other key Iranian sites. You have 4 hours to release the hostages or we fire. If you kill them, prepare for a rain of fire"

Last sentence is superfluous since by nuking teheran you'll kill hostages as well. Which would make things a bit awkward.

Second, Kabul. 9/11, Osama in Afghanistan, Taliban defiant and refusing to give him up. Bush says, "You have 2 hours to agree to give Osama to us and 12 hours to get him to us or several cities will be hit with Nukes, including your home province."

Third, Baghdad. Post 9/11, suspected terrorist ties and WMD in Iraq, we've been patrolling against them for years. Instead of invading, Bush says, "Nuclear weapons are trained on several key cities. Turn over Saddam, his sons, and the rest of this list, or you will enter the stone age."

None of these might really have been a good idea, but we have some pretty good history suggesting that the terrorists usually respect strength and look for weakness and few things say, "Strength" like your enemy's cities burning and glowing.

The problem is that US has been a loud proponent of "no first use" policy and "no use against non nuclear countries" policy. Which in addition to being stupid would make whoever made those threats face problem at home and other side might thing he's bluffing because of it.
 
He did the best with what he had available to him and his resources were fairly meagre to begin with. I have always wondered how he would have performed with a more balanced force at his disposal.

His treatment during the Cultural Revolution was disgrace IMO as well.

If Peng Dehuai had commanded a Soviet Style army against McArthur, which had tanks, equivalent jet aircraft, logistics, etc, the UN would have been crushed, or they likely would have authorized the use of Nukes to cover the UN retreat out of Korea.
 
Nobody thinks WW1 Germany was tougher tactically than Nazi Germany?

Not when the AEF was actually engaged as a army. When the US actually started corps and larger operations the German army was rapidly losing its edge & morale. Operations like the St Mihieal offensive were against a rear guard covering a withdrawl. Ditto for the secondary phase of the Meuse Argonne offensive or the Soissons attack. There were some attacks such as Mont Blanc, or the Chateu Thierry/Belleau Wood defensive fights that were against a stiff German force, but those were relatively brief. The German army of latter 1918 was not in the same class as the Germans in Africa or Italy the US fought in 1943, or in Normandy in 1944.
 
Okay the War on Terror doesn't count (nor Poverty, Drugs, Christmas, Women, what have you) because its not an actual war. It's a PR exercise ffs.
The toughest enemy was clearly the Soviets because they were the only ones who could actually do damage to America herself.

Though you could argue that the Cold War wasn't an actual war either by my earlier logic, so I'm going to say Imperial Japan, because they were the only ones that could actually do significant harm to Americans on American soil, even if they couldn't win.
 
I never suggested it was. However, it would likely have been considered in a few cases if our sensibilities allowed.

First, Tehran. Revolution, US hostages seized and held. Imagine an angry Carter (or, more likely, Reagan) saying, "I have nuclear missiles prepared and targeted at Tehran and several other key Iranian sites. You have 4 hours to release the hostages or we fire. If you kill them, prepare for a rain of fire"

Second, Kabul. 9/11, Osama in Afghanistan, Taliban defiant and refusing to give him up. Bush says, "You have 2 hours to agree to give Osama to us and 12 hours to get him to us or several cities will be hit with Nukes, including your home province."

Third, Baghdad. Post 9/11, suspected terrorist ties and WMD in Iraq, we've been patrolling against them for years. Instead of invading, Bush says, "Nuclear weapons are trained on several key cities. Turn over Saddam, his sons, and the rest of this list, or you will enter the stone age."

None of these might really have been a good idea, but we have some pretty good history suggesting that the terrorists usually respect strength and look for weakness and few things say, "Strength" like the mass murder of millions of innocent civilians.

FTFY.

I realise this whole board is just a casual thought exercise, but too many people have a Hollywood attitude towards nuclear weapons aka sealed war crimes in a can.
 
I never suggested it was. However, it would likely have been considered in a few cases if our sensibilities allowed.

First, Tehran. Revolution, US hostages seized and held. Imagine an angry Carter (or, more likely, Reagan) saying, "I have nuclear missiles prepared and targeted at Tehran and several other key Iranian sites. You have 4 hours to release the hostages or we fire. If you kill them, prepare for a rain of fire"

Second, Kabul. 9/11, Osama in Afghanistan, Taliban defiant and refusing to give him up. Bush says, "You have 2 hours to agree to give Osama to us and 12 hours to get him to us or several cities will be hit with Nukes, including your home province."

Third, Baghdad. Post 9/11, suspected terrorist ties and WMD in Iraq, we've been patrolling against them for years. Instead of invading, Bush says, "Nuclear weapons are trained on several key cities. Turn over Saddam, his sons, and the rest of this list, or you will enter the stone age."

None of these might really have been a good idea, but we have some pretty good history suggesting that the terrorists usually respect strength and look for weakness and few things say, "Strength" like your enemy's cities burning and glowing.

I would like citations for terrorists "respecting strength" particularly backing down or issuing face-losing statements after a threat. Why would they choose to back down? Call the bluff, let the nukes come down and watch recruitment soar overnight.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned terrorists usually do not live in cities, and base outside cities. This point has not been refuted. If anything nukes would cripple moderates and collaborators who base in cities. This point has not (and won't be) refuted either.

I would like to add, that since terrorism is a strategy to force political change through fear, the better the terrorists the LESS likely they are to capitulate to threats. It would ruin their entire point of existing and be completely contrary to their goals, skills and inclinations. The most successful terrorists (like ISIS) are propaganda masters and surrendering or appearing to surrender is a complete no-go zone. You might be able to eradicate terrorists through use of actual military force (like Tamil Tigers) over many decades once the force loses the support of the population, but you can't force them to capitulate by flashing show of force.

Any terrorist organization would rub their hands with glee at a civilized government stupid enough to nuke a city in response to a terrorist attack.
 
Last edited:
Gotta agree with several points here...

I would like citations for terrorists "respecting strength" particularly backing down or issuing face-losing statements after a threat. Why would they choose to back down? Call the bluff, let the nukes come down and watch recruitment soar overnight.

Amen. the US was not the "Great Satan" in the minds of most Iranians in 1979. The radical Islamists thought so, but they represented a tiny portion of the population. Far more Iranians liked Americans & the US, they were just disappointed in the US government support of the unpopular Palavi royalty. Once he Shahs government fell the bulk of the Iranians were indifferent to the idea of the Satanic US.

Several hundred thousand Irainins killed or maimed by each nuke detonated would change that very quickly. Radicalizing 99.99% of the Iranians. Think of the effect of Pearl Harbor on the US public.

Earlier in the thread someone mentioned terrorists usually do not live in cities, and base outside cities. This point has not been refuted. If anything nukes would cripple moderates and collaborators who base in cities. This point has not (and won't be) refuted either.

In the case of the 1979 Embassy takeover what folks here are calling "terrorists" were in fact a organized mob of radical students. Untrained in anything we think of as modern terrorist. The leaders of the embassy takeover were fairly astute at politics, and played the US government, both Carter & later Reagan fairly well.

The rank & file of the takeover group remained at the embassy, camped out with and intermingled with the hostage staff. They rotated some members in & out over the months & those not 'on duty' went about their lives or other radical activities within the general population of Terhan.

I would like to add, that since terrorism is a strategy to force political change through fear, the better the terrorists the LESS likely they are to capitulate to threats. It would ruin their entire point of existing and be completely contrary to their goals, skills and inclinations. The most successful terrorists (like ISIS) are propaganda masters and surrendering or appearing to surrender is a complete no-go zone. You might be able to eradicate terrorists through use of actual military force (like Tamil Tigers) over many decades once the force loses the support of the population, but you can't force them to capitulate by flashing show of force.

Any terrorist organization would rub their hands with glee at a civilized government stupid enough to nuke a city in response to a terrorist attack.

In the case of the US embassy takeover the radicals were better described as a political action team, more along the lines of the nazi SA. They formed the leading edge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who filled a similar role in Iran as the nazi SA. so yes the dispensed terror, but not in the same way Al Quaida, the Red Guards in Italy, the Weathermen in the US, or VC assassination teams in Viet Nam.

In the case of Iran the whole point to taking over the embassy was to raise tensions between Iran & the US in order to radicalize the general population. Strangecircus nails it in pointing out the goal of the Iranian radicals was to provoke a US attack.
 
First, Tehran. Revolution, US hostages seized and held. Imagine an angry Carter (or, more likely, Reagan) saying, "I have nuclear missiles prepared and targeted at Tehran and several other key Iranian sites. You have 4 hours to release the hostages or we fire. If you kill them, prepare for a rain of fire"

In addition to what has been observed before:

The Soviets offer Iran their protection in exchange for bases, troop transit rights, and so-on. Iran, threatened with nuclear attack agrees. US is forced to back down because the lives of ~200 million Americans < the lives of 19 Americans. Congratulations! You have not only failed to get the hostages back but have also just given the United States's primary rival what it has dreamed of for literally centuries: access to warm water ports in the Persian Gulf! Watch those oil prices spike.
 
He did the best with what he had available to him and his resources were fairly meagre to begin with. I have always wondered how he would have performed with a more balanced force at his disposal.

[Peng's] treatment during the Cultural Revolution was disgrace IMO as well.
Especially when you consider the "crimes" that Peng had levied against him: opposing Mao for the Great Leap Forward, and conducting the 100 Regiment's Offensive.
 
Top