American Independent Party? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 02:45:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  American Independent Party? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: American Independent Party?  (Read 4779 times)
The CINC
Rookie
**
Posts: 34
« on: June 14, 2012, 03:35:50 PM »

If he emphasized a left-wing economic policy but maintained a conservative stance on social issues he would have created a strong new communitarian party.

If Wallace was elected President in 1968 and his party won seats in Congress, they may have been able to push for a "World War II" style effort to win the Vietnam War. The national guard and reserves would have been called up, the draft would have become air-tight, the country would have been put on a wartime production level, and the military would have been expanded to 20 million men and women.

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normady look pale in comparrison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

Unemployment will have remained low if Wallace kept people at work building and rebuilding the infrastructure. He also could implement universal health insurance and overhauled the tax code and the banking institutions.
Logged
The CINC
Rookie
**
Posts: 34
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2012, 11:46:01 PM »

North Vietnam would have been laid to waist by B-52s, the USMC would have launched an amphibious assault on North Vietnam that made Normandy look pale in comparison while US Army divisions would have invaded North Vietnam from the South.

So, asides from internal civil unrest and massive protests, you've just slaughtered millions. Now what do you do with the massive hulk of Southeast Asia you've just destroyed?

We may would have killed just as many people or less than the incremental strategy we went with going into Vietnam. Had we mobilized the conflict like we did for WW2 and launched an all-out war against North Vietnam, we would have destroyed the conventional forces in 18 months and followed that with a two-year counter-insurgency campaign. The protests really didn't break out until the Tet offensive. But an overwhelming victory in Vietnam would have put an end to the protests.

After the war, we would have invested billions in a reunified Vietnam, building modern infrastructure, modernizing Vietnamese agriculture and industry, and establishing a network of bases there. Vietnam would become another success story like Japan and Korea.
Logged
The CINC
Rookie
**
Posts: 34
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2012, 05:03:48 PM »

The very first quagmire the US ever faced was not in Vietnam but in the Phillipines after the Spanish-American war. The SAW lasted six months and costed little in blood and treasure. But the subsequent guerilla war in the Philipines lasted two years and cost four times as much as the Spanish-American war. Regardless, we did put the insurrection down and held onto the Phillipines for 50 years. Honestly though, instead of granting the Philipines independence, we should have put the Philipines on the path to US Statehood.

After we defeated the conventional forces in Vietnam, we may had a bloody insurrection against the USA. But we would have quelled the insurrection. Eventually, we would have killed all the insurgents had we mobilized for Vietnam like we did for World War II.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.