The US's secret plan to nuke Vietnam, Laos

well...tactical nukes or not, all viet nam was to me was a way for the defense-industrial complex to make some money, and get some war experience for the troops.

It wasnt that the troops didnt fight well, or they didnt have enough supplies or planes or helicopters or tanks (ad infinitum)...it was they were never allowed to do what total war objectives say to do.

1. take away the enemys means to fight (remove his industrial base)

2. take away the soldiers (kill all the combatants)

3. Take away his will to keep it going.

no real objective to take n vietnam...subjugate it...maybee it was for the best.

i have heard even the US Army wanted to play the tactical nuke game...by mass killing the NVA as they came across the border, just as they wanted to do in the fulda gap in germany to the russians. another general seriously suggested using the weapons to rapidly dig a huge ditch across the DMZ...forgetting that laos was next door and that the NVA wouldnt sit there scratching their heads wondering how they would get over the big ditch.

the US wasnt stupid. greedy...maybee. but not stupid:bang:
 
DTop said:
If you'll permit me to jump in, senojekips... papasha40, the plight of the NVA at that time is fairly common knowledge. Giap's book is called "How We Won The War". It should have been called "How The American Media Won The War For Us".


Read and learn.
Click to expand...

Giap was an excellent commander who used every possible means to defeat the incredibly corrupt south which as we all know was supported by the U.S.A. Propoganda was only one tool he used, and he used it very well, much to the chagrin of the Johnson and later Nixon administrations.

The American people were quite tired of hearing the old house of cards theory of communism and how their crusade in south-east Asia was a just cause. But the question is, did the media destroy American morale in this war?

I was a young man during this period and every former combatant who had been their, and a whole passle of draft dodgers usually said the same thing. "We shouldn't be there. The whole situation is f----d.

Not being an American citizen, I can only surmise the terrible conflict at home; a conflict which had the power to rip families apart.

But I do believe that the ones who suffered the most were the soldiers of both armies. When the N.V.A. fought Toe to toe against American troops they usually lost. The guerrilla war employed by the V.C. and N.V.A. was an entirely different kettle of fish.

You have stated that the N.V.A. was about to surrender after Tet. That assumption goes against at least 500 years of resistance from these people. What are your sources?

Did Conkrite and other media figures get it wrong? Yes I believe they did. The V.C. was a spent force after Tet, But not the N.V.A. Some actually believe The N.V.A. engineered the V.C. involvement in the Tet offensive for the direct reason of weakening them beyond repair. It seems to have worked. One less political entity to deal with after victory.

Please do not forget, the N.V.A. soldier carried a weapon, as much ammunition as he could carry and still be comfortable, extra rain-wear, a small cook stove and a one or two pound bag of rice. He foraged for his other nutrients. These soldiers could stay in a position for weeks without making a sound or movement. I may be exagerating, but not by much. The question is, how do you fight people like this? You dont, you make peace and go home.
 
What do you mean what are my sources? Can't you read? My source is that freaking pig, Gen. Giap. Look, I was there and I fought against the NVA. It wasn't me that made the statement about the NVA, it was Giap. Read the book, read the link, read something. Don't come here questioning my sources pal and don't tell me how much I "suffered". Please, get real.
It took them years to overrun South Vietnam after Nixon pulled us out. That should tell you something about the almighty Chinese and Russian supported NVA. Stop listening to draft dodgers and other worthless sources for your facts.
 
In any war they try to have plans for every eventuality, so if there plans to use atom bombs under certain circumstances would it really be surprising
 
It all depends on what you mean by nuclear option.

Tactical nuclear weapons (usually 1 kiloton-10 kiloton in size) are nothing more to a commander in battle than a force multiplier tool.

take for an example the Fulda gap in the corridor leading to germany from the old warsaw pact nations. It was literally expected that thousands of tanks would be pouring through that area because its always been the easiest way into germany. And the western allies knew that despite the technological advantage we had, sooner or later the forces would be whittled down to nothing by superior numbers.

So, enter the realm of the battlefield tactical nuclear arsenal. small rockets with small atomic warheads, like the Davy Crocket, or the pershing missle, or even aircraft delivered munitions were always poised to kinda make the area a sea of glass in case the warsaw pact nations did sucessfully make use of the pass. Sure, it was always held as a final option, but they were prepared to use the option if needed.

if they had that type of thinking in the army forces in europe, it was present in viet nam. any force multiplier is always held as an option. Its why they have them. not as a deterant, but as a vialble war time option for mass attack, mass kill scenarios.

would they have used them in viet nam? i doubt it. the one time the NVA massed troops and vehicles together for the big assault of Tet, 1968, they were beaten back conventionally. the terrain did not lend itself to the introduction of a large enough group at one point that was worth wasting a weapon on. never mind what the court of world opinion would have said. the americans maintained enough resources (planes, helicopters, and men) with enough ammo and supplies to carry out a substained combat against the NVA at all times.:-(

I dont think the oppertunity presented itself well enough in viet nam to use the tactical nukes. on the other hand, SAC seriously considered burning down the whole city of hanoi to get the leadership. they might have tried it if the NVA didnt keep our guys POWs in the city.:bang:
 
There's a difference between coming up with a plan, then actually using the plan. Though I seem to recall reading that LBJ was nervous about Khe Sahn getting over-runned that he was tossing around the idea of using a tactical nuke to end the seige once and for all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top