No More Half Measures--a Vitnam War comcept

[Dan]

Apologies for picking on your posts, they sum up quite a few points in the clearest way.

Yes, hardline Maoists.

Already in a land war, in this scenario.

One we can't win because supposed neutrals are the supply base.

At this point the Chinese aren't involved in another land war yet, and to threaten/bribe them, prior to Carter's visit or pre Sino-Soviet split isn't possibly the best option in so far as there's not actually a lot you can threaten them with, as the US government, the only thing you have to threaten them with that isn't likely to bring the Soviets on board is to recognise the Republic Of China. Given that at this point they Chinese are more ideologically driven, (OTL until the late 70's although an external threat could delay this), you're virtually inviting them into the war.

The idea that vast increases in anything and everything would have no real impact seems Deterministic.


An earlier and/or longer lasting mining of the Harbor should have a positive effect.

My personal view is that a huge military build up would have quite an effect on the ways and means, and the time taken, but I really don't believe that Vietnam could be reunited under a US backed government purely as a result of US military action.

You buy enough time, and you get beyond the China Soviet Split, could mean the end of the soviet supplies coming out of China.

And the harbors are all close by mines...

And by then the Soviet Union itself is start to get near it's expiration date.

I don't think you could close the harbours, you can change the methods of unloading, but that's about all. Other than that though, if the Sino-Soviet split occurs, it would end Soviet supplies without a doubt, instead it opens the NVA and VC up to Chinese supplies. NVA get the Type 56 instead of the AK47.

As much as I mention in my rambling mess that this will cause major changes in the US economy, there's a strong possibility it could do the same to the Soviets and Chinese too. You need raw materials to make weapons. Even if both the Soviets and Chinese are self sufficient in said raw materials, the same raw materials are a source of hard currency, the lack of which is potentially more damaging to the Sino-Soviets than the US who have more income streams.
This could lead to the courting of the Arab nations: oil could end up as a key export to keep the currency coming in to both nations.

Just a shame I couldn't explain the responses as efficiently you were able to make your points.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Easiest way to win in Vietnam was to side with Ho Chi Minh right off the bat. It probably would have gone the route of Yugoslavia. And Minh would have been happy to have American support particularly if it helped with their separation from France.

Once you get past the Tonkin resolution, the options are nukes, occupation of the north, and OTL. I think OTL is actually best option of the three.

 

[phx1138]

As done in in OTL.

It wasn't, actually. Supplies continued to enter North Vietnam to the very last, some (incredibly) sent by U.S. allies.

It didn't in OTL.

That's why airbases & such were off-limits...

Curious. Are you not aware of the bombing and mining of Haiphong Harbour (the principal seaport) in North Vietnam? Operation Market Time, Operation Sea Dragon. A naval blockade was tried.

And that was, what, 1972? Yeah, that's a serious effort.

In any case, assuming you successfully imposed a complete blockade, what's to stop ships simply landing in China and shipping overland?

I'd say keeping supplies from entering along the northern border of Vietnam will be easier.

what's the contingency plan when American forces find themselves confronted with a few million Chinese troops pouring across the Border? Because that's what happened fifteen years before, in Korea. It was a real possibility. Mao hadn't gotten more sane in the intervening years. The USSR and China were having a falling out. But was China really going to tolerate an American occupation on its borders?

Here's an idea: tell the PRC expressly you don't intend to invade. This time, MacArthur's not talking about nuking them.

Seriously, if your issue is that it would help to control the message out of Vietnam that genie is completely out of the bottle, and unless you're prepared to abolish whole chunks of the constitution and fire members of the Supreme Court, you're not getting it back in. To enforce that, you'd basically have to declare a dictatorship.

In any case, what's your point? Are you buying into the myth that the mighty US Army was stabbed in the back by hippies at home? Or that hippies ever had that power? Are you ignoring the fact that American popular support for the Vietnam war remained high, and it was only eroded by the reality that the military consistently failed to deliver on its promises.

The U.S. military does have the right to control access to information. I'm less sure there was authority to charge foreign journalists with espionage...

What obligation does China have?

As stated: stay the hell out of it, or be classified a belligerent. (As to what PotUS would be willing to expand the war to that degree...)

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

It wasn't, actually. Supplies continued to enter North Vietnam to the very last, some (incredibly) sent by U.S. allies.

That's why airbases & such were off-limits...

And that was, what, 1972? Yeah, that's a serious effort.

I'd say keeping supplies from entering along the northern border of Vietnam will be easier.

Here's an idea: tell the PRC expressly you don't intend to invade. This time, MacArthur's not talking about nuking them.

The U.S. military does have the right to control access to information. I'm less sure there was authority to charge foreign journalists with espionage...

As stated: stay the hell out of it, or be classified a belligerent. (As to what PotUS would be willing to expand the war to that degree...)

And my understanding is that mining was incredibly effective.


China could be offered recognition, One China Policy, seat on the UN Security Council, and arms shipments to Taiwan can be made inverse to what North Vietnam gets.

Or as you say, they can be classified as a belligerent also.

 

[NHBL]

OOPS! bigger can o' worms than I expected

It seems that I opened "Worms, Can of, Extra Large, One Case." I knew the war was mismanaged, and very unpopular--but I didn't realize I was opening this large a can of worms. I learned one thing for sure--this is NOT an era that I could consider writing a timeline about!!!
I also learned how divisive the war still is, over 40 years later. (Shouldn't have been so surprised, the"War of Southern Treason" or "War of Northern Aggression" is still decisive 150 years later...

So, I see what I'd need to look into if I do get more interested in this sad part of American history.

 

[shiftygiant]

It seems that I opened "Worms, Can of, Extra Large, One Case." I knew the war was mismanaged, and very unpopular--but I didn't realize I was opening this large a can of worms. I learned one thing for sure--this is NOT an era that I could consider writing a timeline about!!!
I also learned how divisive the war still is, over 40 years later. (Shouldn't have been so surprised, the"War of Southern Treason" or "War of Northern Aggression" is still decisive 150 years later...

So, I see what I'd need to look into if I do get more interested in this sad part of American history.

Hey, shitstorms have been started over less. Be proud that you bought a healthy discussion that has seen no bans.

 

[DG Valdron]

It seems that I opened "Worms, Can of, Extra Large, One Case." I knew the war was mismanaged, and very unpopular--but I didn't realize I was opening this large a can of worms. I learned one thing for sure--this is NOT an era that I could consider writing a timeline about!!!

Indeed. I would recommend considering a timeline, or at least digging deeper and forming your own opinions.

I also learned how divisive the war still is, over 40 years later. (Shouldn't have been so surprised, the"War of Southern Treason" or "War of Northern Aggression" is still decisive 150 years later...

There are still people flipping out about Jane Fonda. No surprise.

So, I see what I'd need to look into if I do get more interested in this sad part of American history.

All I can say is don't buy the mythology.

 

[DG Valdron]

China could be offered recognition, One China Policy, seat on the UN Security Council, and arms shipments to Taiwan can be made inverse to what North Vietnam gets.

Or as you say, they can be classified as a belligerent also.

This is the same Mao that triggered the cultural revolution because he was bored. What would it take to bribe Mao? Give him Taiwan on a platter, hand over both Koreas and recognize Chinese Hegemony through Indochina. And what would he say to that, "Thanks. Do what you want with Vietnam. I'll take this instead.... for now."

Or yeah, classify China as a belligerent, go for the land war in Asia, watch the Sino Soviet split heal up and see two million Chinese cross the border. Then spend the rest of the war desperately trying to keep Nukes from flying or Armies crossing European borders.

I see your point, win win.

 

[DG Valdron]

It wasn't, actually. Supplies continued to enter North Vietnam to the very last, some (incredibly) sent by U.S. allies.

There's a three thousand kilometer coastline and a thirteen hundred kilometer border. There's no getting around that.

And that was, what, 1972? Yeah, that's a serious effort.

Did no good in 1972.

I'd say keeping supplies from entering along the northern border of Vietnam will be easier.

Oh give me a break. The United States can't keep cocaine from entering through a border that it controls. But it's going to keep supplies from moving between China and Vietnam.

Here's an idea: tell the PRC expressly you don't intend to invade. This time, MacArthur's not talking about nuking them.

This time, they have their own Nukes. This time, they've had fifteen years to consolidate their regime. Mao is stronger and crazier than ever.

The U.S. military does have the right to control access to information. I'm less sure there was authority to charge foreign journalists with espionage...

Yeah, it's not the Roberts Court you're looking at. Scalia and Scalito and Brown are nowhere to be found.

Back in those days, there were real journalists and real journalistic independence. Don't imagine that the shit that flies now would fly in the days of Hersh, Woodward and Bernstein, Ellsberg and Cronkite.

In any event, you're mistaken if you think it was hippies that lost the Vietnam war for you.

As stated: stay the hell out of it, or be classified a belligerent. (As to what PotUS would be willing to expand the war to that degree...)

Your problem is that you're threatening a country run by a crazy fucker with infinite manpower and his own nuclear weapons. You can't get around that by talking trash, and their stick is as big as yours.

 

[NHBL]

border interdiction--law enforcement vs warrtime

Oh give me a break. The United States can't keep cocaine from entering through a border that it controls. But it's going to keep supplies from moving between China and Vietnam.

Regarding border controls, the situations are entirely different. One is a law enforcement situation, with the appropriate concerns for people's rights, searxch and seizure, and not running up a high body count. The other one is war, where none of these concerns apply. Cocaine is a small package, whereas the supplies of war are much, much heavier and bulkier.

More important, we aren't simply obliterating anything that moves in the area in question. In wartime, anything that can carry supplies, right down to an oxcart, is a legitimate target of war.

I'm not saying that we can or can't successfully interdict supplies--but I see no relevance in the analogy.

Regarding a timeline, the answer for me is a resounding NO--though I would like to know if there's a decent book that covers the era in as unbiased a fashion as possible,

 

[DG Valdron]

More important, we aren't simply obliterating anything that moves in the area in question. In wartime, anything that can carry supplies, right down to an oxcart, is a legitimate target of war.

I'm not saying that we can or can't successfully interdict supplies--but I see no relevance in the analogy.

Look at it as a Logistics problem.

You can't obliterate an ox-cart unless you are actually there, physically present. Can we agree on that.

Now, if you are there in some sense, there are several ways to obliterate that ox-cart, with diminishing returns. If you have troops on the ground, you can physically shoot it or blow it up. Helicopter gunship, same thing.

But you can't do that, because it's enemy territory, and there are thirteen hundred kilometers of it. There's no way that ground forces or close to ground forces can control that border. It's just not on. At all.

So the only alternative is to systematically bomb the ox-carts at the Border. The trouble with bombers, however, is that they don't hover. Not even a little bit. They have to fly out, they have to deliver their load, then they have to come back. It's not as if they can go up and down the border, watching for ox-carts.

Aerial bomber, drop a bomb on it. But in the 1960's and 70's, these were dumb old steel casing bombs, not smart bombs. So it's not terribly accurate.

And you need good intelligence and surveillance to bomb, and the Vietnamese are not going to cooperate with that. You can forget about any actual intelligence - we're not going to be putting spies and surveillance instruments on the ground there. Instead, you've got aerial surveillance, mostly high altitude surveillance.

The Vietnamese are going to be camouflaging their hearts out, they're going to be steadily engaging in constructing alternate pathways, covert bridges, shelters, trails, tunnels all the way up and down.

And we can bet that their own air defense and monitoring stations are going to let them know that the Americans are coming. Again, this is well before the era of stealth aircraft and high altitude bombing won't be effective, so there's no radar invisibility. The Vietnamese are going to move when America is not around, because there's no way that we can have bombers over 1300 kilometers of border 24/7 for years on end.

The other thing is, it won't be without cost. Again, this is not 21st century air superiority. The Vietnamese had Russian and Chinese technology and they were shooting down aircraft. They had meaningful air defences.

The United States invested massively, the United States threw thousands of tons of Agent Orange, of explosives, of manpower, bombing raids, interdiction missions into trying to close the Ho Chi Minh trail. It failed completely. The Ho Chi Minh trail was never closed, no matter what was done, the Vietnamese adapted.

This is orders of magnitude more difficult, without any available ground options, over a border zone several times larger.

Can't be done. Not with the technology available at the time, and not with the manpower and resources available at the time.

I'm not ideological. I'm just practical with this crap.

The people who actually fought the Vietnam war. LBJ, McNamara, Nixon, Kissinger, Westmoreland, Haig, all the way down to the grunts, the technicians, the spooks.... these were not stupid people.

The great big mistake that people make when they refight the Vietnam was is that they assume everyone is stupid. There's simple solutions.

Why not just blockade and mine Haiphong? Within five years of the Cuban Missile Crisis... why wouldn't anyone want to do that again? But if we blockade Haiphong, then the Vietnamese will just reroute through China. So why not just bomb that border and make sure nothing comes through?

I have to think, if it was really that simple and obvious... they would have thought of it. And if they didn't do it, maybe there were compelling reasons.

I'm not saying that they couldn't have been wrong, but you can't dismiss their views with a wave of your hand. You need to understand and appreciate why they came to the decision, what their logic and information was, before we can second guess and dismiss them.

Control the media? Like they didn't think of that? Hell, Nixon was drawing up lists of journalists he wanted killed. Do you figure there's hiding something like My Lai? That it can be covered up? How long would the cover up last? Sooner or later, someone's going to talk. And once it does get out, do you think Congress or the media would sweep it under the rug? What happens when the My Lai cover up finally breaks apart? And how, short of declaring a dictatorship and censoring all the press all the time do you stop it.

And as for bribing or threatening Maoist Revolutionary China... yeah, that's just ASB.

 

[marathag]

"Supposed neutrals have nuclear weapons, infinite manpower, and a hardline attitude that will not be bought, bribed or intimidated."

In 1968, they had 35 warheads, fewer than what USS Long Beach had for the Talos missiles onboard.

The mainstay of the Chinese Bombers was still the Tu-4 Bull, aka B-29A, being slowly replaced by the H-6, aka Tu-16 Badger. Not finished till 1971, the same year the CIA/NRO was able to determine that H-6 crews were undergoing bomber training.

In 1969, there were stories of the USSR floating ideas on taking out Chinese nuclear facilities, if the US wouldn't object.

 

[DG Valdron]

In 1968, they had 35 warheads, fewer than what USS Long Beach had for the Talos missiles onboard.

The mainstay of the Chinese Bombers was still the Tu-4 Bull, aka B-29A, being slowly replaced by the H-6, aka Tu-16 Badger. Not finished till 1971, the same year the CIA/NRO was able to determine that H-6 crews were undergoing bomber training.

In 1969, there were stories of the USSR floating ideas on taking out Chinese nuclear facilities, if the US wouldn't object.

They would have only needed a few.

 

[BBadolato]

It seems that I opened "Worms, Can of, Extra Large, One Case." So, I see what I'd need to look into if I do get more interested in this sad part of American history.

As far as Vietnam historiography goes, your gonna want to be careful about you read, the revisionist and orthodox schools who have people both pro and anti war sentiments respectively might be questionable, as well international history that muddies the waters greatly. For example Ho Chi Minh as this nationalist in a communist wrapper who would opposed is something that is not entirely true, but any American focused school of might not be willing to focus on that.

 

[Lateknight]

They would have only needed a few.

They use any China ceases to be. If they weren't insane they wouldn't use any unless they being invaded by a hostile foreign power.

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

There's a three thousand kilometer coastline and a thirteen hundred kilometer border. There's no getting around that.




Did no good in 1972.




Oh give me a break. The United States can't keep cocaine from entering through a border that it controls. But it's going to keep supplies from moving between China and Vietnam.




This time, they have their own Nukes. This time, they've had fifteen years to consolidate their regime. Mao is stronger and crazier than ever.




Yeah, it's not the Roberts Court you're looking at. Scalia and Scalito and Brown are nowhere to be found.

Back in those days, there were real journalists and real journalistic independence. Don't imagine that the shit that flies now would fly in the days of Hersh, Woodward and Bernstein, Ellsberg and Cronkite.

In any event, you're mistaken if you think it was hippies that lost the Vietnam war for you.




Your problem is that you're threatening a country run by a crazy fucker with infinite manpower and his own nuclear weapons. You can't get around that by talking trash, and their stick is as big as yours.

They wouldn't have been using the ports and railroads if they did not need them.

 

[maxs]

I hope we can understand the quandary here

since it is usually recognized that the nearest parallel as a possible outcome to what happened in Vietnam, would have been Korea.
There, we choice the option of a protracted war and confrontation, which continued (and continues) for decades.
But there, the issue of allies was not so murky.
In Vietnam, generally the goal chosen is to achieve a reunified Vietnam. When France left, they tried to make clear that, while they drew a line for temporary military purposes, they did not want that line to remain permanently, but for Vietnam to reunite.
At that early date, 1954, it was still widely thought that Ho was one who wanted Vietnam to be part of the Non-Aligned Movement, adhering neither to Western nor Communist views.
So, to achieve some measure of neutrality rather than Soviet domination, you have to move in several directions the US didn't move in. But what I've tried to describe, just very briefly, was the military aspect. In reality, in truly dealing with the issue of reuniting Vietnam as a Non-Aligned, diplomacy and economics are the biggest tools to use.
The lower a profile the US maintains in the South, the less stress will be felt in Hanoi.
Put yourself in Hanoi's position:
they are afraid of China and seek to avoid getting too many strings attached to them by China by accepting a lot of military (especially) support from them. They are also avoiding economic assistance to a large extent. Chinese hegemony, after all, is a fear of the Vietnamese both North and South.
This is the reason the mining of Haiphong had the surprisingly successful effect that could not be achieved with bombing or naval blockades. Anything that inflicted losses on US forces was seen as a vulnerability. On the other hand, any weapon that didn't produce US casualties, but DID eat into Vietnam's assistance from the Soviet Union, sent cold chills down the Hanoi leadership's spine: Russia had appeared to the North as a relative good guy, asking relatively little, not stationing a lot of personnel, not making much in the way of territorial demands, but was a limited threat if excessive dependence happened, since it meant the North would be controlled by USSR to some extent at the political level.
So, they tried to play China off against the USSR when this would work. But they were also interested in a Non-Aligned status that didn't gravitate excessively toward Chinese control.
At the same time, the US keeping a very low personnel profile in the South would tend to mitigate the North's fears that the US was attempting to step in where France left. It was on this point that LBJ's strategy of escalation after 1964 was dreadfully tone deaf.
If we didn't engage in bombing, but only trained Vietnamese pilots, and didn't engage in aggressive military actions but only trained ARVN for its hopefully temporary mission of holding extreme southern South Vietnam (a rough parallel of Cochin China with a somewhat more solid military position), we have instilled less anxiety even among the Soviets that we were seeking territory, an action that prompted them otl to compete with us for influence in the area.
So, the purpose of "my" military actions is not to achieve a permanent division, but only to present the POTENTIAL for that, in the extreme South. This is a dicey thing to do, and could only be done with careful diplomatic emphasis that the goal is NOT permanent division at all, but only to provide a solid enough military position to ensure non-communists could have a safe haven that would not give up until it was clear the reunified Vietnam would be Non-Aligned, not American-dominated or controlled, nor Soviet or Chinese controlled. A key part of this, would be the replacement of US forces with those of India and other Non-Aligned nations. This could probably be done on a city by city basis, and might even include such interesting possible compromises as giving Laos a seaport such as DaNang in the South and/or Dong Hoi in the North. The neutralist Buddhist state of Annam would be a Non-Aligned state.
This process could take awhile, and the biggest challenge is to keep the level of violence down and to achieve as successful an evacuation of the northern provinces of South Vietnam into the line above southern Vietnam or Cochin-China, as possible. It is this humanitarian mission, combined with the gradual replacement of US forces by Indian and other Non-Aligned forces, which woudl be the greatest challenge.
Again, my goal, at least, is not to keep Vietnam divided but quite the opposite, to facilitate its being reunited. To do that, the neutralists have to have a militarily secure area that can be demonstrated to be solid and unassailable with reasonable training and resupply by the West and a willingness of both the West and the Non-Aligned nations to ensure this point.
With the goal limited to that, China also feels less threatened of a possible US aggression in the area. It would probably be important to start the replacement of US trainers with Non-Aligned military personnel as soon as possible, with the recognition that ARVN could not completely disappear until it was fully trained and battle tested in holding the line of the new Cochin China area. Once the solidness of this line had been demonstrated by its successful resistance of NVA direct assaults, and once it was demonstrated beyond doubt that the US would readily agree to its trainers being replaced by Non-Aligned nation military personnel, it should be possible to achieve this with less violence.
Yet, a series of events would have to occur successfully, most especially the successful and peaceful humanitarian evacuation of the northern provinces as that area is re-designated Buddhist Annam. Also, the replacement of US personnel with Non-Aligned personnel would also need to occur as soon as the solidness of this new southern line was demonstrated. Otherwise, the threat of a continued US presence would prompt long-term planning by the North to overrun any standing government in the area.
I believe this has some potential, especially if undertaken very early on, in the early '60s. If the North's generals see that flanking maneuvers are no longer an option, but are also clear that US trainers are being replaced by personnel from Non-Aligned nations, this approach should have some potential for success.

 

[maxs]

Could I just take a moment here to critique historian

rhetoric, as to how the issue of whether the French military had somehow engaged in "outdated" thinking or had been "surprised" by the events of its war in Indochina, I just have to say this:
when JFK and LBJ were moving in 'Nam, there was a lot of huffy talk about "guerrilla warfare" and "behind the lines fighting". This was called "a new kind of war".
Let me just point out that the word is "hit and run" for the small scale raids. There's nothing new about that.
But the other term that has ALWAYS been there for the longer lasting and more strategic or wider scale behind-the-lines fighting, is OUTFLANKING or flanking maneuvers.
There's absolutely NOTHING new about it, either. The French were very familiar with it, and their military had long been aware of the potential of a solid line in the far south of Vietnam that would NOT be subject to the outflanking maneuver that was known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
But even more relevant, the North Vietnamese generals were aware of the process of outflanking--not only its strengths, but its LIMITATIONS. There IS such a thing as a SOLID LINE in military terminology. Such a line is not merely a product of the behavior of troops in the field. Rather, it is a product of geographic positioning of forces in the field.
The ARVN was frequently accused of having "low morale" and this was true, but at least part of the cause of this morale problem was that its upper and lower officers knew that they were being asked to hold positions that were constantly being
OUTFLANKED by the NVA via the Ho Chi Minh trail.
If ARVN had ever had a solid line that was not subject to being outflanked by the NVA--i.e., the line that would exist in the extreme south of Vietnam--it would allow ARVN to have the kind of morale that the NVA had. But, I want to stress, that for OUR purposes, we are not trying to create a permanent ARVN or NVA, but a longer term goal of a military for a united and non-aligned Vietnam.
One other trip wire: we'd have to NOT install another pseudo democratic regime based in reality on dynasty rather than the will of the people. In the OTL, Saigon only had ONE legitimate election, that of 1967, when Thieu won a Plurality. Thieu then moved, by the time of the 1971 election, to shut down that democracy that US soldiers had died to help produce, and at a time after the VC had virtually lost its ability--in the wake of the Test offensive--to inflict terrorism on the rural electorate. His arrogant action in shutting down Saigon's democracy--long before NVA forces entered Saigon--produced the condemnation "little tin horn dictator," and ensured the utter collapse of US congressional support for the South among Democrats and many Republicans in Congress after 1971.
We would definitely have to avoid THAT embarrassing scenario, as well. I would like to think, too, that we'd avoid killing the leadership of the south, as well.

 

[marathag]

They would have only needed a few.

to what, exactly? Give SAC an excuse to blow Red China back to the stone age? Flying a Tu-4 to Nuke Saigon was unlikely to be successful in any case

 

[marathag]

They wouldn't have been using the ports and railroads if they did not need them.

And after the Paris Peace, the US had to sweep the mines out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_End_Sweep