"Would nukes have helped in Vietnam?" Topic

link

I found this interesting. Perhaps others will too. I found the blog due to a post on the attack on Nagasaki.

Nukes would have been useful in the abstract way that, if the war went nuclear, we would be nuking cities in CHina & the Soviet Union, which would have an impact down the line in Vietnam as well. Not that we would have benefited from this level of escalation in the end.

Damon.

No. Their supporters had nukes. Nuke where? In the South Vietnam area? To near to Chinese border would have been disastrous.

Good way to surrender the moral high ground to the North and to destroy any kind of support from your allies.

There is a lot in this blog post and on the website it links to.

In a tactical sense, there was little nukes could do that conventional bombing could not. The kind of targets available barely warranted the conventional bombing anyway. That might have been different in 1972.

Earlier, the US was far more vulnerable to potentially being targeted with small, tactical nukes that could theoretically be supplied by the USSR or China. Another nothing to gain and much to lose rabbit hole, like invading the north or bombing cities.

Didn't need nukes – just needed follow through. When the US "Vietnamized" the conflict and transitioned primary defense roles to ARVN it promised continued air support and logistics and cash to the South. When the North launched a major offensive in 1972, the South defeated them with US air support.

That was the model, and it was working. Sure, there were still infiltration problems but remember that the Tet Offensive was a disaster for the Vet Cong, they ceased to be an effective force after that and the main effort was led by the NVA.

Fast forward from 1972. When the anti-war Democrats took the Congress in 1974 they immediately reneged on all the support deals and promises in place with South Vietnam. This emboldened the North who gathered arms and support from the USSR and PRC and made a massive assault led by armored columns in 1975. With no air support, no supplies and no cash for their economy the South fell. The result was a regional holocaust in which millions died and millions more fled for their lives as refugees.

A brutally deadly unforced error.

Way back when I was eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War, and watching the evening news and reading Time and Newsweek etc., I came to the conclusion that the Administration (there were a few) were not really all that interested in winning it. They were only interested in "showing resolve".
There is no real psychological difference between "tactical" and "strategic" nukes. Nukes are and were nukes. No administration was willing to cross that line, even if it would be a war winning strategy. Lose, lose on the diplomatic scale. And Russia or China would be more than willing to supply North Vietnam with "tactical" suitcase bombs. And what could we do but bluster?
I'll even wager that all this was discussed between Kissinger and his Commie counterparts.
They would have solved nothing, and likely made it worse.
So we continued to show resolve, and as Johnny Cash sang to Nixon, "Each week we lose a hundred fine young men."

With the Nixon administration looking to lesson tensions with the Soviet Union and China, using any kind of nuclear weapons would have been out of the question. Using those improved relations was a contributor to forcing North Vietnam to the negotiating table in 1972.

I don't believe there would be any chance of the use of nukes not that I think there ever was a practical use, as the paper says.

By 75 we simply did not have the bases and infrastructure to do what we did in 72. I was there in 72 and they had to reopen Takhli and ramp up Korat just to accommodate the new squadrons brought in for the April offensive. Tuy Hoa, Phu Cat, Phan Rang had all been closed or in the process of being turned over to the VNAF before the offensive in 72.

More importantly, a substantial majority of the US public had zero appetite for the kind of massive re-engagement standing up multiple air bases and throwing added carrier groups in theater would involve. I strongly doubt given the speed at which the South collapsed that the US could have ramped up in-theater tactical assets in time to prevent the fall.

The story of the 1972 negotiations is another can of worms. Hanoi was always ready to talk – just never willing to compromise on their war aims. In the end the US bombed Hanoi into accepting their [the US] concessions. All sides knew the US would renege on their promises to the south sooner or later.

No need for Nukes and Nukes have fallout, etc. It would not be clean in anyway. Affecting all of Indochina, etc.

All sides knew the US would renege on their promises to the south sooner or later.

I remember read and/or seeing something on a TV documentary. That POTUS Ford was more than willing to give military aid[not troops] to SVN once the US had left. But I also remembering a Senator[wisely] said something like, we gave them aid for over 10 years. What makes anyone think this aid would make any difference?

As we know it wouldn't …

Maybe at Dien Bien Phu, if the political fallout (pun intended) could have been contained. Otherwise, I don't really see the application as nuking Hanoi would have probably led to WW3.

They virtually held a gun to Thiệu's head to make him agree to sign the Paris Peace Accords.

I strongly doubt given the speed at which the South collapsed that the US could have ramped up in-theater tactical assets in time to prevent the fall.

Perhaps. But when the Democrats cut off all aid ostentatiously it was a clear green light to the North, who rolled in with heavy armor and air support from the USSR and China. So we got out, and the region got this…

Hanoi was planning to take over the south and end the war by 1976 at the latest. They moved faster when they saw how quickly the ARVN collapsed.

I think that picture is Cambodia? There is a similar memorial in Vietnam near the border with Cambodia. Villagers massacred by Khmer Rouge. It's very chilling.

The argument that somehow, someway, we could have "won" Vietnam if we just tossed more money at the South is an old one, & not a very good one. The North was emboldened not by withdrawing money from the South, but by Nixon's "Peace with Honor" peace accords that allowed the North to maintain their troop levels in the South & the gains they had made in their offensive. The Nixon peace was essentially a temporary cease fire, & not exactly what the US wanted (the troops in the South was a US concession in order to get a peace accord on the table & signed).

In the end the Democrats had it right; we had been supporting South Vietnam for decades, almost since 1954. It did not matter how much money or military support you could throw at them; we fundamentally misunderstood the motives of the war (it was Nationalism, not Communism), & in doing so propped up a corrupt, barely functional government in the South. When the North resumed their offensive in '74, the soldiers fought but the leadership melted away. No amount of money could save them. The Democrats were right; why waste money on this country when we needed to spend it on a worthy goal, like making sure Europe isn't overrun by the Soviets.

Damon.

We have had the 'couldn't the US have just won somehow?' thread over and over.

The answer being – not at an acceptable cost/risk. Commit 1 million troops for 10 years – maybe. Not care if China entered the war? Then you can invade the north. Etc. They tried everything they were willing to try. You can fiddle around with the timing and perhaps get more effect. But if the US were unwilling to occupy the South with around 1 million troops indefinitely any victory would prove to be temporary.

As I have said before – the main US goal was stopping Indonesia and the Philippines electing populist democratic governments. By '68 that was no longer a risk. Post Tet the US was trying to get out without losing face. In the end they settled for getting out.

SBs mini guy – respect. K.N.O.W.ledge

I think that picture is Cambodia? There is a similar memorial in Vietnam near the border with Cambodia. Villagers massacred by Khmer Rouge. It's very chilling.

I believe that as well. Regardless many in that region died at the hands of Communists using weapons from the Communist USSR and PRC. From what I understand the Communist North were not very "magnanimous" with many from the South.

Including many of the Tribesmen, in the outback in the hills and dense jungles, etc. e.g. "'Yards", Hmong, etc. There was a good reason why many from the South wanted to get out of the area. As the NVA overran much of the South, Saigon, etc.

Double Post … Daaa Bug … 🐜

SBs mini guy – respect. K.N.O.W.ledge

My impressions of that war are very much colored by some Vietnamese and Cambodian friends of mine who escaped the hell that followed our failure in Vietnam. The war ended for us, but not for them, who saw family butchered before their shocked child eyes, fled as child refugees and survived what we thankfully only see in movies -- casual murder, beatings, starvation, rape, slavery…just brutal beyond belief. The North unleashed a pogrom in the South that killed up to 500,000 or more. And then their proxies, the Khmer Rouge killed up to 1,500,000 in the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia.

Then I have older friends and family who are Vietnam vets, most of them have bitter emotions about all their personal pain and sacrifice having all been for naught. That also colors my view.

We have had the 'couldn't the US have just won somehow?' thread over and over…But if the US were unwilling to occupy the South with around 1 million troops indefinitely any victory would prove to be temporary.

We've been in South Korea now for 70 years protecting them from the North and helping them build a free market liberal democracy. We committed to their defense. We kept close to a quarter million troops in South Korea for a decade after the end of the Korean War. All told, the US has cycled millions of soldiers through South Korea. It worked. It has deterred the North from attacking, had allowed the South to grow.

The reason it didn't work in Vietnam is that we CHOSE to fail. That is, the American people who elected the extreme anti-war Left into the Congress did. They were tired of Walter Cronkite and the news pushing the narrative of failure, tired of the protests, tired of the seeming inability to "win". I mean, come on -- Vietnam was the first war in which the Media established the narrative. Sure, I don't want to have a snow job telling me it's all sunshine and sweetness, but the US Media turned the military victory of Tet into a US defeat. Tet was a resounding failure for the North and it saw the destruction of the Vietcong as a coherent force. But it was spun as a failure.

So yeah, we chose defeat. And millions died. Well, back to work now…

Vietnam had no influence over the Khmer Rouge post 1975 – and no control before that. Vietnam is the only country that made any attempt to stop the genocide when they invaded in 1978. The root cause of the genocide is the US bombing. You might stretch the point and blame Hanoi for using Cambodia as a safe haven and supply route. But then you could go further back and blame the US for ignoring the Geneva accords and installing the puppet GVN regime. Or even say the US should not have supported the French return post WW2.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything stems from something else.

It's also necessary to examine the American intervention in South-East Asia in tandem with US domestic politics.

Eisenhower got the US into Indochina, albeit in a small way. Kennedy increased the US involvement and it seems would have escalated had he lived.

Johnson was in a bind. He could not get out of Vietnam in 1964 due to the ghost of Kennedy. So – unable to get out he got further in. The GVN were on the verge of collapse so he really had no choice. I don't think many of Johnson's decisions were not forced on him. This is how things actually happen. There is not one single mind in control.

Another thing many people ignore or just do not realise is the nature of the GVN. It was a horrific regime – looting the country, murdering their own people and corrupt to the core. Not democratic, liberal or free in any sense.

People also look at South Korea now and assume that is how a South Vietnam would look today. Leaving aside the undemocratic military dictatorship and human rights abuse in South Korea prior to 1987, there are no grounds to suppose South Vietnam would ever be like South Korea. A more comparable country is the Philippines. There are many parallels with Vietnam and the Philippines today with the latter being in worse shape in many regards.

Today Vietnam is moderately successful given it's history and geography. Far from perfect, there is much I would want to see change, but is it worse off than it would have been had the US somehow achieved it's maximal goals? We can't ever know but I doubt it.

US withdrawal of support for the GVN and a rapid North Vietnamese victory was the least of all possible evils in my opinion. It was never a war of goodies and baddies. More baddies and worsies.

With hindsight US support for Ho Chi Minh at the end of WW2 would probably have been the best course of action. But his approaches were rebuffed.

the US has cycled millions of soldiers through South Korea. It worked. It has deterred the North from attacking, had allowed the South to grow.

Yep, I was there with a forward deployed M113 Mech Bn for 22 months. 1984-1985, With 2 tours on the DMZ. Seemed to have worked so far.

We may have thought we could do the same thing in Vietnam but for a number of reasons and about 60,000 dead … we were wrong.

As I have said before, my cane, crutches and walker from the VA were all made in Vietnam. I'm sure the irony of that does not escape the Vietnam Vets there that have to use them.

Not with McNamara calling the shots.

I've heard more than one Vietnam Vet say, "McNamara knew the cost of everything but the value of nothing." … or something like that …