is this a possibility. would we have done this, what might the repurcussions have been (of cousre it would involve the russians) but in the long term what would the pros-and cons be.
possibility of a early victory in 'nam by use of nuclear weapons
- Thread starter SargentHawk
- Start date
TheKinkster
Banned
What in the name of God is it with all the ASB crap being posted on here recently? C'mon folks, is it that hard to think about where a post belongs?
Well, the cons would be that you've probably annihilated a couple thousand or hundred thousand civilians, poisoned large stretches of Southeast Asia, and alienated every civilized country in the world.
Pros? Conservative saber rattlers won't spend the rest of their lives feeling emasculated, and can feel like big men instead.
Pros? Conservative saber rattlers won't spend the rest of their lives feeling emasculated, and can feel like big men instead.
The bomb was discussed by the Johnson and Nixon administrations. Both decided not to use it, obviously.
Delta Force
Banned
Nixon thought he could upset the idea of the rational actor model with the "Madman Doctrine" and by doing completely insane things could scare the communists into a ceasefire in Vietnam (as a specific goal) and make the communists too scared of Nixon's "madness" to provoke America elsewhere.
This isn't exactly ASB as requiring the US leadership to take a significant nose-dive for the worst in terms of basic respect for humanity. It could happen, you would just need a PoD quite far back (worse Red Scare, longer/more brutal Korean War etc...
Would Soviet bombers be within range of South Vietnamese targets from their nearest base?
They would be unnecessary for nuclear attack. The Soviets had operational ICBMs as early as 1960.
Which is of course why the US pulled out between 1973 and 1975, because North Vietnam was beaten.
ANY sort of nuclear attack (by anyone) would have been too much, clearly. But since the scenario is being considered, practicality is on the table. And it seems to me that the Soviets' most practical means of delivering a nuclear response (God forbid, I know) were ICBMs which could be targeted at South Vietnam without risk to aircrews and with no chance of interception. The whole discussion is ghoulish, IMO, but there you have it.
How much of a higher yield were Russian ICBMs/how much more destructive were they compared to the bombs on their bombers and SLBMs on their submarines?
Their earliest production model carried a 3-megaton warhead. That seems more than sufficient to take out likely targets. Sure, if they were crazy enough to actually DO this,or if the US was crazy enough to provoke it, they'd probably use more than one delivery system. I was only pointing out that there was no need for them to do so.
Not the Vietnam War, but there was a proposed plan to use tactical nuclear weapons to aid the French.