Why was the Vietnam conflict not considered a war?

Answer 1

It is considered a war and a lot of men and some women lost their lives in that war. It was the U.S. government, not helped by some of society that turned their backs on the Vietnam Vets and tried to hide the fact that the U.S. had no business getting into the war in the first place and it was a blight in U.S. history. JFK and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated for wanting to "bring the boys home" among other reasons.

Answer 2

It is sometimes called a conflict because the US Congress didn't ever actually declare war. Instead the US President used his "constitutional discretion" calling it a "police action".

Answer 3

technically the United States has not officially declared war since 1941. This includes not only the conflict in Vietnam but also the one in Korea and subsequent conflicts fought in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Answer 4

Technically the government said we were there for containing communist spread into South Vietnam so they were trying to keep people from thinking we were being unnecessarily aggressive and also it appealed to the isolationists still in America.

Answer 5

The Vietnam War is like the M-551 Sheridan tank; the Sheridan is called a "light tank" by everyone...military and civilian alike. And it is a light tank. However, when it was designed in 1962, built in 1966, and fielded in Vietnam in 1969 (nearly 200 of them were destroyed there)...the US Army specifically instructed it's Armor Crewmen Trainees (AIT) at Fort Knox Kentucky; "Men...that is an Airborne Armored Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle, you will NOT call it a tank! Is that clear!?" Then pointing to the parked M-48A2C Patton tanks, "Those ARE TANKS!" "Questions?...didn't think so." Officially, the Sheridan is (was-it's long since retired now) an Armored Airborne Reconnaissance Assault Vehicle..but we all call it a tank (a light tank to exact).

WW2 was the LAST declared war fought by the US. So some people prefer to call any war that's not declared to be a "conflict." Which might have been true prior to the atomic age (1945 when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-Bombed). Since the Atomic Age (commencing in 1945) TOTAL wars which have been traditionally DECLARED Wars, can no longer be fought...without risking "Mutually Assured Destruction"...consequently, we had a COLD WAR (a military stand-off) from 1945 until 1990 when the USSR collapsed. In the age of Nuclear Weapons (Atomic Weapons) only LIMITED WARS can be fought...LIMITED to non-atomic weapons.

The Korean War and Vietnam War were LIMITED WARS...limited to only conventional non-NUCLEAR weapons only. The older historians will simply have to change with the times and accept the fact that declared total wars can no longer be fought; only LIMITED WARS-limited to non-nukes.

Finally, the term "conflict" HAS been used interchangeably with the Word "war" when literature is written about WW1, WW2, the US Civil War, etc. So seemingly, that Word too, is acceptable when used in the correct context.