Street_Disciple
Banned
Any opinions or ideas on, of course not atomic weapons, although Nixon was recorded considering them (rather sarcastically??)....
Chemical weapons used in Vietnam
- Thread starter Street_Disciple
- Start date
The US did use tear gas in Vietnam for tunnel clearing operations, something that was called chemical warfare at the time. The criticism so soured the military on tear gas that they only recently began reconsidering their unofficial ban on its use imposed after 1975.
As for the real thing (mustard/nerve/etc.) I just don't see it. There is little real advantage to be gained with gas in that sort of environment (particularly the triple-canopy jungle, but even in the highlands), and the political fallout would be fierce...
As for the real thing (mustard/nerve/etc.) I just don't see it. There is little real advantage to be gained with gas in that sort of environment (particularly the triple-canopy jungle, but even in the highlands), and the political fallout would be fierce...
We would have nuked them
While use of chemical weapons by the Viet Cong against our densely crowded and immobile military bases would unquestionably have given them immediate victory, what makes you think that we would not have retaliated against North Vietnam's cities?
If the Viet Cong had used gas during Tet and overrun all our bases and captured all our supplies and weapons, we would definitely have gone nuclear. Half a million dead troops would have driven us nuts.
While use of chemical weapons by the Viet Cong against our densely crowded and immobile military bases would unquestionably have given them immediate victory, what makes you think that we would not have retaliated against North Vietnam's cities?
If the Viet Cong had used gas during Tet and overrun all our bases and captured all our supplies and weapons, we would definitely have gone nuclear. Half a million dead troops would have driven us nuts.
Brilliantlight
Banned
aktarian said:
Agent Orange was a defollient and a rather good one as well but would have been an awful CW agent. Its effects kicks in years after exposure. That is not going to help the military right then and there.
Geez, Ray, that's pretty harsh... the US would be given the "Sore Loser" award of the century; plus, we'd lose every ally we had. If it had been up to me too, I'd have also pulled out of the war ASAP. What I might have done also is wreck everything we could get our hands on... ports, factories, airbases, anything the Russians would want... let them bear the expense of rebuilding them while we save billions a year by not being in the war anymore..
I love you Raymann (in a strictly platonic sense).Raymann said:
Though I do have to say that that would be going to far, nukes would be enough. Seriously though, we could have used neutron weapons against the VC. None of that nasty radiation to worry about really.
Oh, and can you call it losing when your enemies are neon green dust blowing in the wind?
Brilliantlight
Banned
Raymann said:
What benefit do you think the US would get out of that exactly? Wrecking NATO? Having anti-American riots all over the world and having riots against the government in the US? Guarentee that the president gets impeached? There would be no pardon after that crime.
Grey: Many do refer to napalm as a chemical weapon, but I just don't see it. It produces damage by burning, not by any more exotic chemical reaction, and in that sense it is no difference than White Phosphorous or even tracer rounds. More to the point, by casting the net (as it were) so broadly (remember, even 'conventional' explosives kill and are chemicals), you tend to obscure the impact of these more 'exotic' weapons. I believe that we would agree though, these are horrible weapons...
Wkwillis: Immediate victory? Don't be sillier than you have to be! Certainly chemicals wouldn't be fun to deal with, but mortar barrages weren't uncommon during the war, and troops learned to cope with those. My best guess is that far more aggressive patrolling would have been used (at least as a start) to keep the VC/NLF/NVA out of easy range, followed by dispersing bases to make them less lucrative targets. In point of fact, the use of chemicals against the US might have helped matters along. Certainly it would have been a major PR victory for the US (chemicals were considered beyond the pale, as it were), and as a secondary effect, it might have discouraged the debilitating habit of many US commanders to hole up in their bases, sending out patrols only occasionally...
Wkwillis: Immediate victory? Don't be sillier than you have to be! Certainly chemicals wouldn't be fun to deal with, but mortar barrages weren't uncommon during the war, and troops learned to cope with those. My best guess is that far more aggressive patrolling would have been used (at least as a start) to keep the VC/NLF/NVA out of easy range, followed by dispersing bases to make them less lucrative targets. In point of fact, the use of chemicals against the US might have helped matters along. Certainly it would have been a major PR victory for the US (chemicals were considered beyond the pale, as it were), and as a secondary effect, it might have discouraged the debilitating habit of many US commanders to hole up in their bases, sending out patrols only occasionally...