"When Richard Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam" Topic

"Washington now sees nuclear weapons as a last ditch resort … but it hasn't always and the Pentagon has been more than happy come up with plans to lob the devastating bombs at America's enemies.

Sometimes, Washington used those plans to exert political pressure. In 1969, Pres. Richard Nixon did just that.

Nixon had promised to end the war in Vietnam during his campaign, but peace talks had stalled in Paris. Thanks to newly declassified documents, we now know that he asked U.S. military commanders to figure out how to scare North Vietnam and its Soviet allies into peace on America's terms…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The fallout would have been a real problem …

You bet… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Nukes in the context of Vietnam aren't new. There was contingency planning even in 1968, but it obviously didn't go anywhere.

Highly unlikely they would have been used.

There was even a suggestion to use a nuclear weapon in support of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Hard to imagine how that could have worked.

Yes, I had read somewhere, there were B-29s in the PI being painted with French markings. But those could have been used with standard ordinance, not just Nukes…

But again, dropping WMDs on SE Asia, would have caused many more problems than it could have solved, IMO …

The false threat(s) were used as a negotiating ploy, and were never very serious, though Nixon didn't want his opponents to know that.

Sun Tzu paraphrase … "Warfare is deception" …

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

There was a contingency to use WMD at Dien Bien Phu, but it was in the context of Operation Vulture, which was more just a big strategic bombing mission(s).

link

Yes, I remember reading something about that. But even 3 small Nukes would have been quite a major event, IMO.

Of coarse 98 or so B-29s with HE, Incendiary/Napalm could have certainly done some damage to the Viet Minh. Could have been a game changer possibly ? At least may have bought French more time …

If only….

At that time tactical nuclear weapons were still part of the overall range of options. It was thought they could be used without escalation to a full scale nuclear war.

Small weapons are not much more destructive than a large raid by conventional HE or incendiaries and no more inhumane anyway. Nuclear fallout and casualties due to radiation are an extra layer of nastiness, but being burned alive in a firestorm is not much better.

My question when this comes up is what would you target in the context of the wars in South East Asia? Hanoi? Some area of mountain rainforest thought to be occupied by large scale ground forces?

They could easily have destroyed Hanoi without nuclear weapons – It just would have been a huge PR disaster and may have brought China in.

That was the worry – Chinese troops were in North Vietnam freeing up Vietnamese troops for use against the US and GVN forces.

Anyway. It's important to remember, the 2nd Indochina War was never about defeating the North or saving the South. It was about preventing Indonesia and The Philippines becoming left leaning independent states. By 1968 that was already no longer on the cards.

It simply wasn't worth the risk to go 'all in'. The fighting rumbled on for a few more years with half the US casualties coming AFTER Nixon's decision to withdraw and the only war aim by then was saving face.

Would they had supported Ho Chi Minh in 1945.

It was about preventing Indonesia and The Philippines becoming left leaning independent states.

It was about stopping the spread of Communism in SE Asia and elsewhere in the region. For better or worse …

The war was mostly seen is a fairly positive light in Malaysia and Singapore c 1966-70 as I recall and of course Thailand sent troops.

Yes, you are correct.

@ Legion – We seem to disagree on this. You are entitled to your opinion of course.

The Pentagon papers blew the lid on this in 1971 so it's hardly news.

Malaysia is not and was not in the 1960s a beacon of political freedom so it's hard to know what the Malaysian people thought about anything. Singapore is still virtually a one party state with opposition heavily suppressed so the same goes for them.

Thailand didn't even begin toying with democracy until the 1970s and was under military dictatorship in the 1960s, so sending troops is hardly an indication of popular support. South Korea which provided the largest contingent was also under military rule by Park Chung-Hee from 1961 until his assassination in 1979.

Anyway – I'm not going to get into an argument about it on here. Just felt I should point out these details for other readers.

You are correct … again … we disagree …

Yes, those nations in the region you mentioned were not beacons of political freedom, etc. … but they were not Communists. So at that time that is all that counted. And we didn't want them to go or even toy with Communism …

SEATO was formed basically for that reason. It was the PTO version of NATO. It consisted of nations who were in the region or had interests there. [*Nations who sent forces to Vietnam]

United States*
United Kingdom
France
Australia*
Pakistan
Philippines*
Thailand*
New Zealand*
ROK*

Of course the Forces of South Vietnam, e.g. ARVN, Montagnards link etc. fought against the Communists there as well, i.e. VC, NVA, etc.

South Vietnam was backed by anti-communist countries and members of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which included:

United States
South Korea
Australia
the Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Khmer Republic (later overthrown by Khmer Rouge)
Kingdom of Laos
Republic of China (Taiwan).

North Vietnam was backed by the communist allies which included People's Republic of China, Soviet Union, Pathet Lao (Laotian Communist insurgents), Khmer Rouge (Cambodian Communist insurgents) and North Korea.

Plus 30,000 Canadians jointed the US Forces and served in SE Asia/Vietnam. Albeit it was considered to be illegal. AFAIK none were charged with any crime from their home nation of Canada.

It was a fight against Communism … Basically a proxy war with the US and it's allies vs. the PRC, Russia, etc.

I too thought I should point out these details/facts for other readers. To give another side of the story/POV so to speak …

There was a serious communist insurgency in Indonesia--people forget that. And we all know what happened to "neutral" Laos and Cambodia, which were infested with North Vietnamese troops, who supported the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge.

Yes, and that had some Communist influence as well … link

This topic is a bit too political for TMP. If we argue it won't end well for anyone. I've made my points and will leave it at that.

Ditto …

I believe the implied threat was also against the USSR as well, with B-52s circling in holding areas near their borders, in order to get their "attention".

I suspect that was effective, given the number of powerful nukes these could carry, as well as the poor Soviet Air Defenses of the day vs. low-level bomber attacks.

They really didn't solve this issue until they got the Mig-25 and Mig-31, with effective look-down, shoot-down radar. Even the Mig-23, which supposedly had a LD/SD radar was rather limited in capability to perform that task.

I don't think any US president would have wanted to take the adverse publicity for another unprovoked nuclear attack. The Soviets all being good chess players probably were well aware of this.

Nukes were discussed..we have that on record, but never seriously. Nixon was at his wits' end by then.

I too doubt the US would have launched nukes or any weapons at the USSR. Save for possibly killing some "advisors" on the ground and/or in the air in SE Asia ? If in fact there were any there at all, like the PRC ?

E.g. on the Son Tay Raid it was reported by the US SF on the ground. They killed more Chinese than NVA.

But again I was not there and only relaying what I had read and heard. That being said, I would not doubt the PRC had "advisors" in SE Asia/Vietnam. And the US killed some of them.

A very large number of Chinese were in North Vietnam freeing up Vietnamese forces. Hundreds of thousands. I don't think many Soviets were there, but there were Czechoslovakians and Cubans in small numbers too.

And of course North Koreans – some of whom are buried there. There was some speculation whether the North Korean leader would visit their graves. In the end he didn't.

An older Korean man I met was in the South Korean contingent sent to Vietnam. He told me about North Korean psyops officers broadcasting propaganda over speakers.

Quite a tangled web.

Definitely Soviets. They were helping with the SAM system and some of the training in how to use the MiG-21.

That is an interesting "rogue's gallery" of advisors. I had thought similar in some cases. And in Korea the Norks did make a number of attacks along the DMZ, along the coast, etc.

To support their "communist" brothers in Vietnam. IIRC about 43 US service members lost their lives in the mid '60s. Some referred to this as the 2d Korean War.

I heard about the Cubans and some other WP there "advising".

I remember back in '84-'85 on the DMZ. One of our patrols or units spotted a blonde haired non-Asian in a Grey(?) uniform with the Norks. Somewhere a long the DMZ …

In '85 after my second tour of the "Z". Our replacement Bn's QRF got into a fire fight. When a USSR civilian IT guy working with the Norks. Ran across the line at Pan Mun Jom and requested sanctuary. One ROK was killed, one GI WIA. Plus 3 Nork KIAs and about a squad was cut off and surrounded on the South side of the line/DMZ. The US CG commanding the 2ID ordered the GIs to let the Norks take their dead and go back to the North. Said we are not going to start up the war again today.

I felt it was a win for us. We had a USSR defector and 3 enemy KIAs vs. one ROK KIA and one GI WIA.

FWIW: I met a former USAF guy that claimed that while in Thailand (did not get the date or airfield) they had a jet on the flight line with a centerline nuke ready to go.

Nukes are best for deterrents and not to actually use. Personally, I'd like to see someone in each administration in the State Dept or DoD that is conducting a psyop claiming first use of nukes as a foreign policy solution (Bolden?). Of course, everyone claims he's "crazy" but crazy scares your enemy.

Wolfhag

"FWIW: I met a former USAF guy that claimed that while in Thailand (did not get the date or airfield) they had a jet on the flight line with a centerline nuke ready to go."

There were some F-105s on Guam, nuke armed, ready to go in 1968 after the Pueblo was seized. But nobody was going to launch them. That was one botched operation, with really dumb decision making at higher levels--then they tried to blame the Captain for trying to follow their orders.

We had almost no conventional capability "on call" for some reason when that happened in range of the ship.

This book on the topic is excellent.

link

I agree with you that Nixon wasn't serious about nuking the USSR, but he certainly did want to put on a good show for them, to keep their interest.

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that about the nuke(s) being prepped and ready.

I suspect the US carriers were able to be "loaded for bear" in short order too, especially with tactical jets like the Vigilante, etc.. Rumor has it that their rear, slide-out bomb dropping system worked a bit too well, and one actually fell out onto the tarmac in a rather shocking incident.

Yes I had heard similar that both the USAF and USN had nukes available … just in case. But it was not well known or in the media.

I don't think those were so much to use on Indochina. As much of it was still pretty feral, etc. But if the hit the fan with the USSR and/or the PRC. You don't want to go to a gun fight only carrying a knife.

Nuclear deterrence was all about making the other guy believe you were serious and even if they pre-empted you, they'd still take a pounding.

That's why it worked.

Yep ! E.g. Un and Iran knows they may get the first shot … but after that – game over, schools out …