Nuclear Vietnam War?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13736
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 02:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Nuclear Vietnam War?
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Subject: Nuclear Vietnam War?
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 14:19
|
In papers recently:
Recently declassified documents reveal that during Richard M. Nixon's first year as president, advisers on his White House staff were willing to revisit the question of whether to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB195/index.htm
What do you think the consequenses would have been if nuclear bombs had been used in Vietnam?
Not just on the war, but also on the attitude towards the employing of nuclear weaponry by the big powers?
Would it have stopped the war? Or would it just make the North-Vietnamese more determined?
Would the Russians have bombed South-Vietman in return? Or America?
Would the nuclear threat in the Cold war have been bigger or smaller?
Your opinions please! ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Replies:
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 14:50
|
Results possible: 1) Impossibility of the US getting closer from China in 1972. 2) Massive rebellion in Europe and specially in the US 3) US victory in Vietnam but N. Vietnam as a no man's land for decades. 4) I think no war in the Middle East in 1973. So basically a Cold War turning into an Ice age but unlikely a real war except in China made a really crazy move that is attacking south Vietnam. Which was an option. Ultimately, I think USSR would still be around as nobody would move as they feared to get atomised. Do you have other nice topics like this one? M. ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 15:17
|
A limited use of tactical nukes in North Vietnam wouldn't have done much as the military/industrial infrastruture was so dispersed. Dropping nukes on the Ho Chi Minh trail would have slowed supplies for a while but the NVA would have just gone around the bombed areas or even made new routes through radioactive wasteland. A large scale nuclear attack would have defeated the North Vietnameses but it almost certainly would have triggered a much larger war with China and the Soviet Union. ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2006 at 15:31
|
I think the plans were mainly centered on bombing Hanoi. That would suggest the objective was crushing morale rather than tactical purpose.
Do you have other nice topics like this one?
Seriously? Or is this irony? Well, no, I don't. The white house does not open confidential files on a regular basis, do they? -------------
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Pharoah Fred
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 13:49
I don't think that it would have stopped the North Vietnamese, it
probably would have just made them more ferocious. I mean, the amount
of bombs dropped on Vietnam in vain, and they still didn't stop. 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2006 at 18:32
|
Such an attack would have given China and the USSR the green light to
commit similar acts of inhumanity on US allies. Upsetting the entire
international balance of peace, order and security for the sake of one
tiny, impoverished, Southeat Asian country (or rather half of one)
simply was not worth it.
------------- |