Political Crossfire Forums

[William Amos]

Interesting story this coming out. Is just an option talk but how differently the war could have turned out.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060731/ap_on_go_pr_wh/nixon_vietnam;_ylt=Ai8Ua0WlDGGicb4PsUTffUlvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

Nixon considered nukes in Viet war

WASHINGTON - President Nixon, in his first year in office and eager to end an unpopular war that killed tens of thousands of U.S. troops, considered using nuclear weapons against the North Vietnamese, recently declassified documents show.

By mid-1969, Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger had settled on a strategy using international diplomacy with threats of force against the communists ruling the north in an attempt to get them to buckle, according to an analysis of the papers by the National Security Archive. The private research group is headquartered at George Washington University.

Kissinger and his staff began developing contingency military plans under the code name of "Duck Hook." He also created a committee within the National Security Council to evaluate secret plans prepared by Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington and military planners in Saigon.

A pair of declassified documents raised the question of nuclear weapons use in connection with the military operation against the north, which was fighting to reunite with the democratic south, according to the archive.

The first is a Sept. 29, 1969, memo from two Kissinger aides — Roger Morris and Anthony Lake — to Capt. Rembrandt Robinson, who had a central role in preparing the Duck Hook plans. Robinson had prepared a paper for the NSC committee outlining the Joint Chiefs plans to attack North Vietnam.

But the archive says Morris and Lake, unhappy with the document, asked Robinson to rework it to present "clearly and fully all the implications of the (Duck Hook) action, should the president decide to do it."

They said the president needed to decide in advance "the fateful question of how far we will go. He cannot, for example, confront the issue of using tactical nuclear weapons in the midst of the exercise. He must be prepared to play out whatever string necessary in this case."

The second document is an Oct. 2, 1969, memo from Kissinger to Nixon, introducing an NSC staff report on the state of military planning for Duck Hook. The report said the basic objective of the operation would be to coerce Hanoi "to negotiate a compromise settlement through a series of military blows," which would walk the fine line between inflicting "unacceptable damage to their society" and causing the "total destruction of the country or the regime."

But Nixon abandoned Duck Hook shortly after Oct. 2. Both his secretaries of Defense and State, Melvin Laird and William Rogers, opposed the plan. Nixon apparently also began to doubt whether he could sustain public support for the three- to six-month period the plan might require. He also concluded that his military threats against the North Vietnamese had no effect.

U.S. troops remained in the country throughout Nixon's first term despite a gradual withdrawal of forces that he began in 1969. Nixon was re-elected in 1972 and secured a cease-fire agreement the following year, but it was never implemented.

Two years later, in 1975, North Vietnamese forces overran the South, reuniting the country under Communist rule

[The Comrade]

and if nixon had followed through with this plan what would russia have done in response? i think it's a very good thing he decided to not go with the plan.

[leftneckredwing]

So are you cheering this option William?

[Timmytour]

Guess there wouldn't have been much left for George Bush to see in his forthcoming visit to the country.

Makes you think about what really achieves success... the desperation to win a military victory and drop the bomb, or the humility to withdraw when you realise your strategy has failed.

Today's Vietnam is a showpiece for the triumph of humility over military desperation.

[Thrilla]

Timmytour wrote: Guess there wouldn't have been much left for George Bush to see in his forthcoming visit to the country.

Makes you think about what really achieves success... the desperation to win a military victory and drop the bomb, or the humility to withdraw when you realise your strategy has failed.

Today's Vietnam is a showpiece for the triumph of humility over military desperation. huh?

[daxuesheng]

isnt this something more for history forum?

[William Amos]

leftneckredwing wrote: So are you cheering this option William?

Just giving info.

Imagine how bad it could have been if something like 911 had been staged by North Veitnam.

The potential is there again. So we better be on the top of our game else this is the alternative.

[letfreedomring]

------------------------------------------------
Today's Vietnam is a showpiece for the triumph of humility over military desperation.
------------------------------------------------

double huh? from me.

[Timmytour]

letfreedomring wrote: ------------------------------------------------
Today's Vietnam is a showpiece for the triumph of humility over military desperation.
------------------------------------------------

double huh? from me.

Well let me put it this way...

If the US had dropped the A bomb in Vietnam, that to me would have been military desperation.

The fact that the US pulled out showed, in the end, admirable humility.

So where's Vietnam now?

It's a country which George Bush is going to visit shortly.

It's a country whose President Bush has welcomed to the White House...

It's a country about whom the State Department website says

Quote: U.S. relations with Vietnam have become deeper and more diverse in the years since political normalization. The two countries have broadened their political exchanges through regular dialogues on human rights and regional security. They signed a Bilateral Trade Agreement in July 2000, which went into force in December 2001. In 2003, the two countries signed a Counternarcotics Letter of Agreement, a Civil Aviation Agreement, and a textile agreement.

In short, it's now a united country with whom the US can, and indeed does, do business with.

I don't think that would be the case if military desperation had won the day all those years ago.

[letfreedomring]

---------------------
So where's Vietnam now?

It's a country which George Bush is going to visit shortly.

It's a country whose President Bush has welcomed to the White House...

It's a country about whom the State Department website says

U.S. relations with Vietnam have become deeper and more diverse in the years since political normalization. The two countries have broadened their political exchanges through regular dialogues on human rights and regional security. They signed a Bilateral Trade Agreement in July 2000, which went into force in December 2001. In 2003, the two countries signed a Counternarcotics Letter of Agreement, a Civil Aviation Agreement, and a textile agreement.


In short, it's now a united country with whom the US can, and indeed does, do business with.

I don't think that would be the case if military desperation had won the day all those years ago.
-----------------------------------

so where Viet Nam is now is it has a Communist government that is oppressive to its own people. Religion is not really tolerated. The State control everything. Censorship is the norm. The only reason the US visits there and wants to "normalize" relation is because the big corporations want to exploit the cheap labor, nothing more, nothing less. As far as human rights issues are concerns, the Commies pretty much turned a deaf ear as most do. Regional security?? so the US wants to build a base there to keep an eye on the Chinese, the Russians, and the North Korean?

Nixon wouldn't have to even think about the A Bomb had the US policy on the war would have been different from the start.

[XiangYu]

letfreedomring wrote:
...
Nixon wouldn't have to even think about the A Bomb had the US policy on the war would have been different from the start.
If President Johnson wasn't so adamant about rooting out Communism, rather wanted to help Viet-Nam achieve independence (which btw would also diminish Sino/Russsian influence in the region) then Viet-Nam might have turned out differently.

[pikers]

letfreedomring wrote: so where Viet Nam is now is it has a Communist government that is oppressive to its own people. Religion is not really tolerated. The State control everything. Censorship is the norm. The only reason the US visits there and wants to "normalize" relation is because the big corporations want to exploit the cheap labor, nothing more, nothing less. As far as human rights issues are concerns, the Commies pretty much turned a deaf ear as most do. Regional security?? so the US wants to build a base there to keep an eye on the Chinese, the Russians, and the North Korean?

Nixon wouldn't have to even think about the A Bomb had the US policy on the war would have been different from the start.

So, we use Vietnam for all it's good for - cheap labor. No one's wanting to use them as a model for Democracy or civilization. In the late 50's, the viewpoint was much different as it is today. Nah, dropping the bomb on NV wasn't necessary, because we were quite adept at killing the enemy as it was. Vaporizing jungle doesn't do much.

The real dumb idea would have been using the bomb in Korea. Pulling that idea off the table was the best thing Truman ever did, mitigated shortly thereafter by firing MacArthur. Truman never had a good move without countering it with something even dumber, but that's a different thread.

[letfreedomring]

------------------------------------------------------
No one's wanting to use them as a model for Democracy or civilization
------------------------------------------------------

To what democracy to you refer??