Nixon considered using nukes in Vietnam

[Patroklos]

developing contingency military plans

Why do you guys always get worked up over this?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Nixon considered using nukes in Vietnam

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Really? Nothing in the article suggests that.
Morris, Lake and Robinson, yes. (Interesting that Lake went on to be Clinton's NSA.) Nixon? Nothing there except that he wrote the whole thing off shortly after October 2, which is the earliest date the article gives for him having any awareness of the plan. Nothing states the document he received discussed nukes - it's a separate document from the Morris, Lake and Robinson one. Kissinger? Not surprising. I could see ol' Super K with a cowboy hat riding one down.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Why do you guys always get worked up over this?

To give O2s something to get worked up about?

[atawa]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I imagine Cambodia would have taken it badly, since they gave refuge to the North (even though they proclaimed neutrality; and the USA would stop at the border).

So there were no American bombing raids and incursions into Cambodian teritory?

But nuking Ratanakiri wouldnt have mattered much, the area is sparsely populated and most that didnt get killed by US carpetbombing of villages had allready started moving west.

[SlowwHand]

It should be noted that while the bombing of Cambodia continued after Operation Menu ended in August of 1969,

Well after the war was under way. Regardless, military leaders were never given full authority to achieve objectives, which was the whole problem in Vietnam.
No, "take and secure Hanoi", for instance.

[atawa]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Well after the war was under way. Regardless, military leaders were never given full authority to achieve objectives, which was the whole problem in Vietnam.
No, "take and secure Hanoi", for instance.

True, the biggest single mistake made by the politicians in the war, they basicly send the troops in with one hand tied against their back.

[SlowwHand]

Exactly right.

[snoopy369]

We were a lot closer to using them in Korea/China than Vietnam. For one thing, Vietnam did not have significant support from China [I'd not heard they had any worth mentioning, in fact...] and using them against China would be a more realistic use of the weapons; we wouldn't have been using them against Korea for Korea's sake, but for China's [as China was becoming a world power and threatening to develop nukes at this point].

[SlowwHand]

They most certainly did have support from China.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Well after the war was under way. Regardless, military leaders were never given full authority to achieve objectives, which was the whole problem in Vietnam.
No, "take and secure Hanoi", for instance.

That should have been "take and secure Hanoi from exprected counter-attacked by millions of Red Chinese soldiers with probable involvement from the Soviets as well, such as a counter thrust into West Berlin."

[Patroklos]

o give O2s something to get worked up about?

Common, just pointing out the nonissue

They most certainly did have support from China.

Orders of magnitude less than NK, they did go to war with each not long after we were gone.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Orders of magnitude less than NK, they did go to war with each not long after we were gone.

And had their arses handed to them.

[Blaupanzer]

And this is important, why? What I see is that the K-man reminded these guys to include nukes as an aspect of their planning -- probably more related to intervention by either Communist major power than as a Nam-only alternative. This would be a smart move, not a news-breaking revelation.

At that time I favored intervention into the North (or get the hell out). However, in view of the corrupt, absurd Government in the South, how would we have administered the North if we won? Post-operative learning courtesy of Iraq -- don't take what you don't want.