Japan seeks defence ties with Asean

[Lure]

Bro, it's not correct, we're strong enough to figh against China or US alone(1975 we defeated US, 1979 we defeated China), but we can't fight against US-China combined, so we have to make friend with one, and fight with another.

You have fought bravely in the two wars that's true. And beaten the US that's the history. But for the Chinese case it was a little bit different wasn't it? I mean they couldn't even launch a full scale attack because of the USSR threat. A great portion of their army was just waiting idle in their northern border.

Japan need our help coz we control the most important of SCS(east sea) where China-Japan oil imported from Middle East muss pass by, if China control SCS(east sea) instead of VietNam and cut off oil supply to Japan, then Japan have no choice but to surrender to China. We only need Japan in finance and technology. We're welcome US to invest in VietNam, but if that loser force us to do as they wish, then , we will kick them out .That's it.

US don't wanna make friend wt VN coz we ally wt Russia, then fine, we will help Russia to cut off its oil supply from SIngapore to Guam, then Guam will die.Game over for US in Pacific region.

My friend, I guess the strongest part of the US is their political vacuum. If Vietnam accepts the United States alliance than surely Vietnam will be exposed to that political vacuum. You will immediately see Soros funded newspapers just like in the Taiwan, "actively used" social media by the Vietnamese students, local entrepreneurs who wants to take a piece of pie from American investment and bingo with a very high probability you get your color revolution

I mean at least Chinese threat is much more visible and they are easier to negotiate. If you negotiate with US it gives you something but believe me when it finds the opportunity it takes all back one way or another My country liberated itself in 1923 from allies. We got everything; dignity, freedom.. Now we are the 51th state of the USA

 

[Soryu]

You have fought bravely in the two wars that's true. And beaten the US that's the history. But for the Chinese case it was a little bit different wasn't it? I mean they couldn't even launch a full scale attack because of the USSR threat. A great portion of their army was just waiting idle in their northern border.

My friend, I guess the strongest part of the US is their political vacuum. If Vietnam accepts the United States alliance than surely Vietnam will be exposed to that political vacuum. You will immediately see Soros funded newspapers just like in the Taiwan, "actively used" social media by the Vietnamese students, local entrepreneurs who wants to take a piece of pie from American investment and bingo with a very high probability you get your color revolution

I mean at least Chinese threat is much more visible and they are easier to negotiate. If you negotiate with US it gives you something but believe me when it finds the opportunity it takes all back one way or another My country liberated itself in 1923 from allies. We got everything; dignity, freedom.. Now we are the 51th state of the USA

NiceGuy just want play with Chinese troll, join that if you want some fun.

 

[tranquilium]

Bro, it's not correct, we're strong enough to figh against China or US alone(1975 we defeated US, 1979 we defeated China), but we can't fight against US-China combined, so we have to make friend with one, and fight with another.

I don't know what exactly they are teaching in Vietnam history books, but to say Vietnam "defeated" US alone in Vietnam war is rather ridicules.
How did US lose the war? The short version is US was forced to fight the war with severe handicaps and eventually was forced to withdraw due to internal protests.
The long version: During Vietnam war, United States pretty much have advantage in every single aspect of the war----logistic, manpower, firepower, information, etc. However, North Vietnam has a key advantage that makes all those advantage useless----the Chinese government warned US that if US army move past 17 degree parallel, then China will intervene, just like the Korean war. As a result, the US army never set foot north of 17 degree parallel line and even the planes avoid Chinese/Vietnam border where all the production facility of North Vietnam is located. As a result, no matter how well US fought in South Vietnam, no troop in North Vietnam means US simply can't deal a decisive blow.
If you are familiar with Vietnam war history, doesn't it surprise you why US pretty much spent the entire time fighting guerrilla and the North Vietnam force in South Vietnam territory instead of going straight for the source? Isn't cut enemy off at its head and destroy its supply basic tactics in war?
The answer is that they can't. Chinese/Vietnam relationship may have soured after China/Soviet split, but that doesn't change the fact had US tried to attack North Vietnam itself, then they would be doing Korean war #2, only this time with a modernized Chinese army that had nuclear weapon in the works.
On top of the huge strategic advantage provided by China, both USSR and China also send weapons and equipment to North Vietnam. China sent J6 fighters and infantry weapons and Russians built factory for Vietnam along Vietnam/China border.
To sum it up, to say Vietnam "defeated" US alone in Vietnam war is utter non-sense. The more accurate term is that US lost a war due to internal conflict generated by fighting a proxy of two other members of UN security council, aka the big five.

To say Vietnam "defeated" China in 1979 is even more ridiculous. For Vietnam war, Vietnam can at least claim that they meet their strategic objective and the other party admitted de facto defeat through drawn of its troops. No matter how you look at the Sino-Vietnam war, you can't claim there is any strategic objectives met by Vietnam and the Chinese pretty much met every single one of theirs. Here are the long term strategic objectives of both sides of the Sino-Vietnam conflict:
Vietnam objective of the war: Fend off Chinese force to preserve Vietnamese dominance of Southeast Asia.
Chinese objective of the war: Destruction of Vietnam's ability to threaten Southern Chinese borders and Vietnam potential to dominate Southeast Asia.
In essence, after the Vietnam war, Vietnam became the most powerful nation in Southeast Asia and it was poised to conquer the entire region. This is shown by Vietnam conflict with neighboring countries. China did not wish to see a strong opponent at its southern door and proceeded to take Vietnam down a few pegs (or a lot more than that, I will explain) There are other minor objectives for China, such as improving relationship with US and Europe by taking down an ally of USSR, etc.
For the war itself, there really isn't much to talk about. The Chinese army went against its tradition (which is winning wars by outmaneuvering its opponent in strategic and tactical play) and simply carpet bombed everything. You see a mine? Boom! It's gone. You see a factory? Boom! It's gone. The Chinese force was there to remove Vietnam's ability to be an influential player in the international arena by systemically de-industrialize Vietnam. (Remember those factories on Vietnam-China border? Those Russian built factories which were the backbone of Vietnam industry?) And when the conflict ended, every single strategic points along Vietnam-China border belonged to Chinese. Today, Hanoi, Vietnam's capital is still in range of Chinese artillery.
And that is pretty much the Sino-Vietnam war. I am not sure how you can claim victory from a beating like that.
In order to claim victory, typically you need to 1) meet at least one or all of your strategic objectives 2) Ideally you would also want to come out on top on tactical level, but it is not required as long as you do reasonably well. If you don't have 1, then you can't claim victory at all. If you don't have 2, then it can turn in to pyrrhic victory.
For example, China can claim victory in Korean war because they meet all their strategic objectives: drove UN forces from the Chinese border and prevent the collapse of North Korean. At tactical level, the Chinese forces suffered a 1.3 to 1 death/wounded ratio against UN force, which is acceptable consider the Ally vs Axis death/wound ratio is 2:1.
Another example, Chinese Japanese war during WWII and the year leading up to it. China can claim it achieved all the strategic objectives: Defeat of Japanese forces and liberation of all Chinese territories, excluding some far off islands. However, the death/wound ratio is 50:1 China vs Japan; therefore, it is a victory, but a very costly victory.
In Vietnam war, North Vietnam achieved all of its strategic objectives: unification of Vietnam under North Vietnam, become independent nation. At tactically level, the death/wound ratio is 1.25 to 1 North Vietnam vs US/South Vietnam. So Vietnam can claim victory.
In Sino-Vietnam war, Vietnam achieved none of its strategic objectives: Vietnam's ability and potential to conquer southeast is destroyed. At tactical level, the death/wound ratio is 2:1 Vietnam vs China. This is excluding guerrilla and militia forces employed by Vietnam. If those numbers are included, the ratio can be as high as 3.5:1. As a result, the Sino-Vietnam cannot be anything but a Vietnam defeat.

 

[Viva_Viet]

I don't know what exactly they are teaching in Vietnam history books, but to say Vietnam "defeated" US alone in Vietnam war is rather ridicules.

How did US lose the war? The short version is US was forced to fight the war with severe handicaps and eventually was forced to withdraw due to internal protests.
.

Us didn't fight alone in VN war, they dragged their allies in,too.

They lost the war coz we're stronger, now, the fate of their Guam is in our hands.If we cut off its oil supply from Singapore to Guam, then Guam will fall.

In Sino-Vietnam war, Vietnam achieved none of its strategic objectives: Vietnam's ability and potential to conquer southeast is destroyed. At tactical level, the death/wound ratio is 2:1 Vietnam vs China. This is excluding guerrilla and militia forces employed by Vietnam. If those numbers are included, the ratio can be as high as 3.5:1. As a result, the Sino-Vietnam cannot be anything but a Vietnam defeat.

Is it what China's history book told you ?? China leader seem so ashamed to tell you guys the Truth. Oki, read again VN-Laos-Camb thread to know the truth ? We successfully install pro -VN govt in Laos-Camb

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The coup happen in 1997,you seem know Nothing abt ur 'best friend'

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/227105-vietnam-laos-cambodia-2.html#ixzz2OEPPNCuz

First: Cambodia King have NO real power.

Second: Mr. Hun Sen who pro VNstil is real powerful leader until now , and his supporter: Gen. Tea Banh is Defence Minister , Gen. Meas Sophea(Vietnamese-Cambodian) is Army Chief now.

Hope u're not stupid to believe that VNese-Cambodian like Mr.Meas Sophea will support China against VN , VNese is control Cambodia army now

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-far-east/227105-vietnam-laos-cambodia-2.html#ixzz2OEOphkKw

You have fought bravely in the two wars that's true. And beaten the US that's the history. But for the Chinese case it was a little bit different wasn't it? I mean they couldn't even launch a full scale attack because of the USSR threat. A great portion of their army was just waiting idle in their northern border.

No, even when USSR fell, we're alone, China couldn't defeat us, too. China army don't have a smart tactic in real combat,that's why, they couldn't defeat us even when we're alone. All they could do to us is just to take some of out useless islands in Spratly archipelago of SCS(east sea)in 1988.That's all

 

[visom]

NiceGuy, what tranqilium said is absolutely right except the sino war is somewhat questionable lol but id rather not comment on that

 

[Soryu]

NiceGuy, what tranqilium said is absolutely right except the sino war is somewhat questionable lol but id rather not comment on that

NiceGuy just want play with Chinese troll, join that if you want some fun.

 

[Fsjal]

VN can cut off China-US's oil supply from Middle East, Singapore and make ur people starve to death coz we control the largest and the most important part in SCS(east sea), pls don't envy wt us coz China is too weak to play the Cutting Game like VietNam

You made me laugh.

But how is that possible. Are you asking for war?
-----------------
On topic

http://japandailypress.com/japan-ca...es-with-asean-amid-chinese-agressions-1325078
Japan calls for stronger security ties with ASEAN amid Chinese agressions

 

[tranquilium]

NiceGuy, what tranqilium said is absolutely right except the sino war is somewhat questionable lol but id rather not comment on that

Eh, the death/wounded ratio in Sino-Vietnam war has some room for speculation, since the Vietnam government refused to release numbers. My data is taken from recent estimations using the units in combat at the time.
Remember, the Sino-Vietnam war isn't just the 1979 conflict. It is a prolonged conflict which lasted until 89. During this ten years, China is essentially using one or two army groups at a time and Vietnam is mobilizing the entire country. As a result, Vietnam lost the golden window for economic prosperity.
To elaborate, the 80s is the last decade leading up to collapse of USSR. Many third world nations, including China, can trace their success to this decade. The reason is that with the presence of USSR, US and European nations are forced to look for counter balances in third world countries. This allows the third world nations to make past the critical start-up stage in international economic arena.
During this ten years, however, Vietnam is forced to divert huge amount of resources to fight a war. As a result, Vietnam missed this window and its economic never really took off the ground. The Vietnam economy recovered somewhat from 90s to 96. Though the loss of key allies such USSR ensured that Vietnam simply couldn't muster the same level of strength they had a decade ago. By the 97s, US financial attacks farther crippled Vietnam economy (along with a lot of ASEAN nations).
Nowadays, with 08 financial storm and China's market share, Vietnam's economy is not going anywhere fast. Though I don't think the Chinese leaders actually planned for the effect of 79-89 Sino-Vietnam war, since nobody could have predicted the collapse of USSR, the end result is that Vietnam missed the critical decade which they could have used to build themselves to a major power. The lesson of the story is that opportunity waits for no one. You missed it, you are not going to get it back, especially if you are a small nation.

 

[jhungary]

I like the way some Vietnamese thinking.......

"If we secure SCS, our Guam WILL fall because of no fuel and food."

Well.......

It would be the case if our ship only know and operate in One direction.

First of all, set aside all the middle eastern oil and Alaskan/Texas Oil, in this post, this agrument, we assume, yeah we need the Middle Eastern Oil and Middle eastern oil is our lifeline.

In case you lot don't know, even if Vietnam can blockade the whole SCS, there are other searoute you know?? we could just use Atlantic-Transpacific line (Via panama canal) bring the oil past Suez Canal from Middle East and enter the Alantic Ocean via either South America (cape horn) or via Panama Canal or simply by pass the Malacca Strait and enter Australia and South pacific route via Indian Ocean, we still hold Diego Garcia in Indian Ocean. Or we can use the Northern searoute.

Northern Sea Route in Blue

Do remember, the world is round, it's a sphere, you don't need to go East to head East, when you head west and go thru the international date line, you will be heading East instead of West.

If you know the sea is blockaded and our ship, the Proud US Navy, still continue the journey ahead unchanged, then i guess we deserved to lose Guam to the Vietnamese.....LOL

 

[Lure]

Eh, the death/wounded ratio in Sino-Vietnam war has some room for speculation, since the Vietnam government refused to release numbers. My data is taken from recent estimations using the units in combat at the time.
Remember, the Sino-Vietnam war isn't just the 1979 conflict. It is a prolonged conflict which lasted until 89. During this ten years, China is essentially using one or two army groups at a time and Vietnam is mobilizing the entire country. As a result, Vietnam lost the golden window for economic prosperity.
To elaborate, the 80s is the last decade leading up to collapse of USSR. Many third world nations, including China, can trace their success to this decade. The reason is that with the presence of USSR, US and European nations are forced to look for counter balances in third world countries. This allows the third world nations to make past the critical start-up stage in international economic arena.
During this ten years, however, Vietnam is forced to divert huge amount of resources to fight a war. As a result, Vietnam missed this window and its economic never really took off the ground. The Vietnam economy recovered somewhat from 90s to 96. Though the loss of key allies such USSR ensured that Vietnam simply couldn't muster the same level of strength they had a decade ago. By the 97s, US financial attacks farther crippled Vietnam economy (along with a lot of ASEAN nations).
Nowadays, with 08 financial storm and China's market share, Vietnam's economy is not going anywhere fast. Though I don't think the Chinese leaders actually planned for the effect of 79-89 Sino-Vietnam war, since nobody could have predicted the collapse of USSR, the end result is that Vietnam missed the critical decade which they could have used to build themselves to a major power. The lesson of the story is that opportunity waits for no one. You missed it, you are not going to get it back, especially if you are a small nation.

That's one reason. True. And there is more,

Vietnamese economic reform Doi Moi (1986) came a decade after the Chinese "Reforms and Opening up" (1978) which made them lose a lot of time to create a "Socialist oriented market economy". Also Vietnamese economic reforms were much more protective than China. By 2005 70% of the Chinese GDP was being produced by the private sector which was very similar to western economies whereas Vietnam was never able to obtain such a strong private sector because despite the economic reforms, CPV was still heavily regulating the economy.

And a little remark for the 2nd indochina war,

Of course there were reasons for the defeat of the US. One of the main reasons for the social unrest was the "Draft Lottery" policy. But that's the part of the game isn't it? I mean if you can't explain your cause to the public, and force them to join a war which doesn't even interest them at all than you will have your social unrest no matter what your regime is You got to be smart enough to convince your people and mobilize your army efficiently otherwise no matter how strong you are you simply lose

However that doesn't change the fact that they have fought a war with an enemy which was technologically much more advanced. That makes you a brave person if you stand against a stronger guy doesn't it?

 

[Viet]

I like the way some Vietnamese thinking.......

LOL you are half Vietnamese, aren´t you? You don´t want to blame yourself, either, I assume.

Actually it is only Mr NiceGuy who wants to conquer the world, I don´t mind, but to take his opinion as what all Vietnamese think is really silly. Thanks anyway to your explainnation how Guam can be never taken by Vietnam.

 

[tranquilium]

That's one reason. True. And there is more,
Vietnamese economic reform Doi Moi (1986) came a decade after the Chinese "Reforms and Opening up" (1978) which made them lose a lot of time to create a "Socialist oriented market economy". Also Vietnamese economic reforms were much more protective than China. By 2005 70% of the Chinese GDP was being produced by the private sector which was very similar to western economies whereas Vietnam was never able to obtain such a strong private sector because despite the economic reforms, CPV was still heavily regulating the economy.
And a little remark for the 2nd indochina war,
Of course there were reasons for the defeat of the US. One of the main reasons for the social unrest was the "Draft Lottery" policy. But that's the part of the game isn't it? I mean if you can't explain your cause to the public, and force them to join a war which doesn't even interest them at all than you will have your social unrest no matter what your regime is You got to be smart enough to convince your people and mobilize your army efficiently otherwise no matter how strong you are you simply lose
However that doesn't change the fact that they have fought a war with an enemy which was technologically much more advanced. That makes you a brave person if you stand against a stronger guy doesn't it?

Correct. Nobody is doubting the fact that Vietnamese is quite courageous in the their wars, but at the end of the day, they are simply not as big a chess piece comparing to the likes of China and USA.
There is always other, numerous reasons why Chinese and Vietnamese reforms turned out differently, such as the fact that Chinese work force's general education level is higher, which is in turn related to cultural legacy and such. Also, China is simply bigger, thus more competitive due to sheer economy of scale. Because of the size, the Chinese internal market is also big enough that allows the country to weather financial storms.
The Chinese government has a saying:"Each country must find and walk its own path." At the end of the day, Chinese reforms are designed for China, just like American government is designed for Americans.

 

[Lure]

Correct. Nobody is doubting the fact that Vietnamese is quite courageous in the their wars, but at the end of the day, they are simply not as big a chess piece comparing to the likes of China and USA.
There is always other, numerous reasons why Chinese and Vietnamese reforms turned out differently, such as the fact that Chinese work force's general education level is higher, which is in turn related to cultural legacy and such. Also, China is simply bigger, thus more competitive due to sheer economy of scale. Because of the size, the Chinese internal market is also big enough that allows the country to weather financial storms.
The Chinese government has a saying:"Each country must find and walk its own path." At the end of the day, Chinese reforms are designed for China, just like American government is designed for Americans.

Of course that's true. Vietnam isn't a big piece on the chess board. But it's like a horse in the center now, which means it's small but it has a strategic value now. It's very assertive about the South Chine Sea issue. South China Sea has two strategic importance. First it's location is like a gate and whoever holds the key for that gate has a great advantage for influencing ASEAN. Second and the basic one is it has large amounts of oil. The existance of oil lets Vietnam to bring any major player to the territory. Russia has no stakes there, also India has none. But they all watch the issues very closely because of oil. Russia seeks a balance between China and Vietnam, whereas India seems to be closer to the Vietnamese position.

Believe me if China can't solve the issue one way or another you will have a problem with that territory sooner or later.

 

[jhungary]

LOL you are half Vietnamese, aren´t you? You don´t want to blame yourself, either, I assume.

Actually it is only Mr NiceGuy who wants to conquer the world, I don´t mind, but to take his opinion as what all Vietnamese think is really silly. Thanks anyway to your explainnation how Guam can be never taken by Vietnam.

Well, to be precise, i am 1/4 Vietnamese, 1/4 Chinese and 1/2 Mexican American.
So, i am an Mexican-American-Vietnamese-Chinese-Australian who reside in Sweden Occasionally.

That does not mean i have to go blindly for any or all heritage i have, to be fair, when we need to combat troll in this forum, you don't stop because you are part of that group. I don't really care who you are, as long as you troll or chest thumping, i will not respect you.

I think i am a realist and i am pretty opening to admit that i have an anti-CPC view, i hate the current Australian Government (Which i don't know how she survive 2 leadership challenges), i don't like some aspect of the Current US government and i sure as hell some time i want to kill my wife just because she's swedish (Can stand her effectiveness)

When i see something wrong, i say it, that who i am. Does not really matter who i was.

I do not think every vietnamese's throught train like this Mr Niceguy, and i do not think every Chinese think like the Chinese member here, i am just see something, say something. That's all

I don't know what exactly they are teaching in Vietnam history books, but to say Vietnam "defeated" US alone in Vietnam war is rather ridicules.
How did US lose the war? The short version is US was forced to fight the war with severe handicaps and eventually was forced to withdraw due to internal protests.
The long version: During Vietnam war, United States pretty much have advantage in every single aspect of the war----logistic, manpower, firepower, information, etc. However, North Vietnam has a key advantage that makes all those advantage useless----the Chinese government warned US that if US army move past 17 degree parallel, then China will intervene, just like the Korean war. As a result, the US army never set foot north of 17 degree parallel line and even the planes avoid Chinese/Vietnam border where all the production facility of North Vietnam is located. As a result, no matter how well US fought in South Vietnam, no troop in North Vietnam means US simply can't deal a decisive blow.
If you are familiar with Vietnam war history, doesn't it surprise you why US pretty much spent the entire time fighting guerrilla and the North Vietnam force in South Vietnam territory instead of going straight for the source? Isn't cut enemy off at its head and destroy its supply basic tactics in war?
The answer is that they can't. Chinese/Vietnam relationship may have soured after China/Soviet split, but that doesn't change the fact had US tried to attack North Vietnam itself, then they would be doing Korean war #2, only this time with a modernized Chinese army that had nuclear weapon in the works.
On top of the huge strategic advantage provided by China, both USSR and China also send weapons and equipment to North Vietnam. China sent J6 fighters and infantry weapons and Russians built factory for Vietnam along Vietnam/China border.
To sum it up, to say Vietnam "defeated" US alone in Vietnam war is utter non-sense. The more accurate term is that US lost a war due to internal conflict generated by fighting a proxy of two other members of UN security council, aka the big five.

To say Vietnam "defeated" China in 1979 is even more ridiculous. For Vietnam war, Vietnam can at least claim that they meet their strategic objective and the other party admitted de facto defeat through drawn of its troops. No matter how you look at the Sino-Vietnam war, you can't claim there is any strategic objectives met by Vietnam and the Chinese pretty much met every single one of theirs. Here are the long term strategic objectives of both sides of the Sino-Vietnam conflict:
Vietnam objective of the war: Fend off Chinese force to preserve Vietnamese dominance of Southeast Asia.
Chinese objective of the war: Destruction of Vietnam's ability to threaten Southern Chinese borders and Vietnam potential to dominate Southeast Asia.
In essence, after the Vietnam war, Vietnam became the most powerful nation in Southeast Asia and it was poised to conquer the entire region. This is shown by Vietnam conflict with neighboring countries. China did not wish to see a strong opponent at its southern door and proceeded to take Vietnam down a few pegs (or a lot more than that, I will explain) There are other minor objectives for China, such as improving relationship with US and Europe by taking down an ally of USSR, etc.
For the war itself, there really isn't much to talk about. The Chinese army went against its tradition (which is winning wars by outmaneuvering its opponent in strategic and tactical play) and simply carpet bombed everything. You see a mine? Boom! It's gone. You see a factory? Boom! It's gone. The Chinese force was there to remove Vietnam's ability to be an influential player in the international arena by systemically de-industrialize Vietnam. (Remember those factories on Vietnam-China border? Those Russian built factories which were the backbone of Vietnam industry?) And when the conflict ended, every single strategic points along Vietnam-China border belonged to Chinese. Today, Hanoi, Vietnam's capital is still in range of Chinese artillery.
And that is pretty much the Sino-Vietnam war. I am not sure how you can claim victory from a beating like that.
In order to claim victory, typically you need to 1) meet at least one or all of your strategic objectives 2) Ideally you would also want to come out on top on tactical level, but it is not required as long as you do reasonably well. If you don't have 1, then you can't claim victory at all. If you don't have 2, then it can turn in to pyrrhic victory.
For example, China can claim victory in Korean war because they meet all their strategic objectives: drove UN forces from the Chinese border and prevent the collapse of North Korean. At tactical level, the Chinese forces suffered a 1.3 to 1 death/wounded ratio against UN force, which is acceptable consider the Ally vs Axis death/wound ratio is 2:1.
Another example, Chinese Japanese war during WWII and the year leading up to it. China can claim it achieved all the strategic objectives: Defeat of Japanese forces and liberation of all Chinese territories, excluding some far off islands. However, the death/wound ratio is 50:1 China vs Japan; therefore, it is a victory, but a very costly victory.
In Vietnam war, North Vietnam achieved all of its strategic objectives: unification of Vietnam under North Vietnam, become independent nation. At tactically level, the death/wound ratio is 1.25 to 1 North Vietnam vs US/South Vietnam. So Vietnam can claim victory.
In Sino-Vietnam war, Vietnam achieved none of its strategic objectives: Vietnam's ability and potential to conquer southeast is destroyed. At tactical level, the death/wound ratio is 2:1 Vietnam vs China. This is excluding guerrilla and militia forces employed by Vietnam. If those numbers are included, the ratio can be as high as 3.5:1. As a result, the Sino-Vietnam cannot be anything but a Vietnam defeat.

I think you either misunderstood the term Strategic Victory and tactical victory. Maybe i am too tired (5 am when i stated this) and your post is too long, if for any reason, i think i was wrong, i will apologise and delete this.

Strategic Victory does not comprise only with winning battlefiled goal or tactical objective. In 20th century battlefield Overall strategic objective (the winnign goal) not only comprise of the final outcome. But also you need to crew in the long term effect after the battlefield. I could well invade a country, destablise a government and build another government that favor us and then pull out. I can leave everything else inplace as before, same enemy, same situation. And i can lose men in the process, does my withdrawal mean we lose the strategic objective. No. So does the fact that if we have established that government (which is our sole intention) and they crumble because of lack of support. You can say they "Defeated" the government, but they did not defeated us.

The term "defeat" in oxford dictionary means

verb
[with object]
win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat:Garibaldi defeated the Neapolitan army

• prevent (someone) from achieving an aim:she was defeated by the last steep hill

• prevent (an aim) from being achieved:don’t cheat by allowing your body to droop—this defeats the object of the exercise

• reject or block (a motion or proposal):the amendment was defeated

• be impossible for (someone) to understand:this line of reasoning defeats me, I must confess

• Law render null and void; annul.

One have to have a physical defeat the purpose of the other. But the key point is, The purpose or the aims can be lost or change in the process thru not affected by the belligent and be on their own.

Problem is. when you look at Vietnam war, it does not suit the term "Defeat" in the dictionary. North Vietnam never phyically defeat the US. They do defeat the french badly in Điện Biên Phủ (That was a classic military defeat) but of all the Battle US/VN force fought, we have never lost a single battle. The case go even weird as the US is not allow to enter the North to begin with, hence there are no instant or chance that US can score a "Victory" with the North Vietnamese to begin with. So, when a war does not fought on 2 belligent, this is not actually a war. A Civil war perhaps but the fact still remain, there are no enemy combatant in this case. So technically we cannot win or lose to anyone, as there are no one to win on or lose to.

There is one thing, and one thing only go right for the North Vietnamese during the whole Vietnam war, is that they hold the American long enough for them to lose interest of the war. A withdraw is not because of enemy pressure nor because maintain fighting is not possible due to physical defeat. but rather the goal of our overall objective changed, and plainly, we don't care about it anymore. It would be of our best interest to move on. Hence the withdrawal. Does that have anything to do with the Vietnamese, or Chinese or the Russian in this matter? Absolutely not, we can keep fighting for a thousand year and let the situation go unchange, but it does not help or suit our own strategic objective . You can say North Vietnam win the Vietnam war. That's true as today vietnam is united under the North. And you can say Vietnam defeat French, this is true too, as there are actual physical military defeat occur. You can say the North Defeated the South too, because that's how they reunited the Vietnam under their banner. But did they win over the coalition? No, as far as we concern, when we pull out, there is still a south vietnamese government, our objective is still complete, even tho we know for sure our pull out equal to their demise, but our purpose have moved on, when it's time to go, it's time to go. Consider this, when US pull out US is drawing with the North if anything, neither side failed to defeat the other side. When US withdraw, the outcome is status quo.

So, by saying that, you cannot literally say China defeat the UN in Korea War too. It will be the case if Chinese sole intention is to creat a buffer zone between North and South and between them and the USA. However, pushing the South back is not their sole objective. They have reuniting Korea under the northern rules in mind. You can clearly see their intention specifically after the winter offensive in 1951 (or the fouth phase attacked) when the Chinese intention was clear that they want to push the South further down to where they started. This is the exact objective of MacAurther when he cross the 38 parallel in 1950. If you say Chinese was victorious because they push UN force out of the Northern border and back where they started. Then you can also credit UN as victorious by pushing back the Chinese back North of the 38 parallel. Hence there are no winner or loser there. It's another status quo.

 

[tranquilium]

So, by saying that, you cannot literally say China defeat the UN in Korea War too. It will be the case if Chinese sole intention is to creat a buffer zone between North and South and between them and the USA. However, pushing the South back is not their sole objective. They have reuniting Korea under the northern rules in mind. You can clearly see their intention specifically after the winter offensive in 1951 (or the fouth phase attacked) when the Chinese intention was clear that they want to push the South further down to where they started. This is the exact objective of MacAurther when he cross the 38 parallel in 1950. If you say Chinese was victorious because they push UN force out of the Northern border and back where they started. Then you can also credit UN as victorious by pushing back the Chinese back North of the 38 parallel. Hence there are no winner or loser there. It's another status quo.

That is true. At the time, the ideal outcome will be unification of Korean Peninsula under North Korea. However, the industrial production of China back then is about around 1% of United States, so keeping the status quo is pretty much the realistic objective.
Bah, we are essentially arguing semantics here and getting off track. I guess my original post is there to show that no, Vietnam certainly did not "defeat" both US and China "alone".

Of course that's true. Vietnam isn't a big piece on the chess board. But it's like a horse in the center now, which means it's small but it has a strategic value now. It's very assertive about the South Chine Sea issue. South China Sea has two strategic importance. First it's location is like a gate and whoever holds the key for that gate has a great advantage for influencing ASEAN. Second and the basic one is it has large amounts of oil. The existance of oil lets Vietnam to bring any major player to the territory. Russia has no stakes there, also India has none. But they all watch the issues very closely because of oil. Russia seeks a balance between China and Vietnam, whereas India seems to be closer to the Vietnamese position.
Believe me if China can't solve the issue one way or another you will have a problem with that territory sooner or later.

You are quite correct. Vietnam does still have significant strategic value. I would like, however, argue that the problem really isn't very significant for China.
I argue this because quite frankly, Vietnam simple does not have the strength to wrestle control of the region from China. The reason for this is two fold.
The first one, obviously, is the raw strength. In 2012, Vietnam GDP is $123.96 Billion. This number is significantly smaller than even some of the provinces in China. The military budget for Vietnam is $3.3 Billion, which is 2.66% of the GDP. Chinese military budget is $106 Billion out of a GDP of $8,250 Billion, which is 1.28% of the GDP. This means not only is Vietnam having significantly less budget to work with from the start, the budget is also a heavier burden for Vietnam than China. This means if an arms race broke out, Vietnam is a lot more likely to lose. This is on top of the fact that for every USD Vietnam spend on military, China only need to spend a fraction of a dollar to obtain the same result or better. This is because Vietnam gears are most imported items while the Chinese equipments are domestically made. Financial wise, Vietnam is in trade deficit while China is sitting on the biggest trade surplus in the world. Chinese real GDP growth is 7.8% vs 5% for Vietnam and Chinese debt is 16% GDP and shrink as oppose to the 38% GDP debt for Vietnam. In short, no matter how you look at it, Vietnam simply doesn't have the raw strength, economically or militarily to go against Chinese.
The second season is much more subtle, figuratively speaking. In 21th century, it is quite difficult to justify direct invasion of another sovereign nation, occupation and annexation is even more difficult. As a result, major nations often use indirect methods to gain control and influence over other piece of land. For example, the toppling of government in Iraq by US and the installation a new government is such an example. (Whether it is working is something else entirely) China, on the other hand, prefers to avoid direct military confrontation. The Chinese method involves building closely connected economic ties. For example, currently 23% of the Vietnam import is from China as well as 10% of the export.
Angering a trade partner of this size pose significant threat the nation. For example, the US government provided millions of dollars to Philippine during the conflict in 2012. However, when China reduced trade with Philippine, the Philippines lost more than ten times the money.