Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


View Poll Results: Should the United States nuked Hanoi during the vietnam war?
Yes we should have nuked Hanoi 5 6.49%
No we should have not nuked Hanoi 72 93.51%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:26 PM   #21

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 5,426

such type of discussions are usually started by classic american intelectualists....
Mosquito is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:32 PM   #22

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,015
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by hisstoryin View Post
True. However, the North Vietnam holds less responsibility for the whole thing. I don't recommend playing the blame game but if we had to it rests primarily with the French and US governments.
Regardless of who you want to blame more, I think the main point lies in that nukes are not toys, nor are they things to be used casually in non-dire situations. Or used against civilians at all. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are almost an exception, as they were used to end a global conflict that was even by that point the deadliest war in human history and they were dropped to prevent further bloodshed. But even then there still exists massive controversy over their usage about whether there were other options or other ways to use them, and whatever peoples' opinions on that are you could say much if not most of the USA was mildly traumatized or close to it by what we had to do to the point where you never see normal people bragging about it as an achievement at all.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:36 PM   #23

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 4,386

The US would never have got away with nuking Hanoi, even so they didn't need to. Had the air war over North Vietnam not have been totally botched until Linebacker 2, or the conduct of the war not been handled as badly as it was, the North Vietnamese would have collapsed as early as 1965. There would have been no Tet Offensive, no loss of US confidence and no communist advance for the following 20 years. Probably no Yom Kippur war, so no 1974 oil shock, no economic crisis, no Iranian revolution, no Cambodian killing fields.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:10 PM   #24

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,211

No.

We should however have launched a full scale invasion of North Vietnam. If the United States government was unwilling to invade North Vietnam, it should have stayed out of the war in the first place. You should never fight a war with half-measures, and the US waged the Vietnam war with one hand tied behind its back.
Scaeva is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 07:15 PM   #25

hisstoryin's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 324

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
The US would never have got away with nuking Hanoi
How so? I heard the French requested they use nukes against Vietnam after they were expelled. If they actually had done it, do you mean to say the President would be prosecuted? I hope you're right actually but I am not so sure he would be.

On a different note, why do so many people feel Vietnam was a justifiable enemy? I realize that many people will say the US was attempting to save South Vietnam's freedom and democracy, but what they really were afraid of was the revolutionist's connection to the Soviets and the spread of communist sentiment in general. That said, why do people still feel this was a legitimate fear given the hind sight we have? Vietnam hardly seems to be an aggressive nation, at least in terms of exporting military power; nor do I see them as having significant geo-political influence. The entire concept of "communism" as the enemy seems totally baseless to me. Yes, communist leaders are often bloody dictators, but so are some socialist and capitalist ones. I only see a correlation between communism and a generally low standard of life for average citizens (relative to highly capitalist ones).

Last edited by hisstoryin; November 7th, 2012 at 07:25 PM.
hisstoryin is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 09:19 PM   #26

pablo668's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Perth, Western Australia. or....hickville.
Posts: 1,904

Hell no!

That would have opened an almighty box of worms on a global scale.
pablo668 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 09:32 PM   #27

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 4,386

Quote:
Originally Posted by hisstoryin View Post
How so? I heard the French requested they use nukes against Vietnam after they were expelled. If they actually had done it, do you mean to say the President would be prosecuted? I hope you're right actually but I am not so sure he would be.
The US was very sparing with its aid to France despite a mutual defence pact, as the US aim was to wind down the French colonial empire. At a critical phase in 1954, short of airpower and with their forces at Dien Bien Phu under pressure, the French asked the US for more air support which they were reluctant to supply but the "loan" of four atomic free-fall bombs was discussed. The previous year Eisenhower had warned the Chinese leadership via the Indian government that he was prepared to use Atomic weapons in Korea and that had led to an armistice there. As it was, the "loan" went no further than discussion. Had France used nuclear weapons against the Viet Minh, they would have been using them on territory that was under their jurisdiction. Likewise, had the US used them against Chinese forces in Korea, they would most likely have been used on South Korean territory. China had no atomic weapons at the time and the Soviets had no ICBMs, or even workable IRBMs and they certainly would not provide the Chinese, North Koreans or the Viet Minh with a Tu-4 (B-29 copy) and crew, their only delivery system, to attack a Western Power.
In America's Vietnam war, things were different. North Vietnam was a sovereign state, The USSR had an extensive ICBM arsenal, IRBMs that were "loanable" to Vietnam (the same as the ones they had place in Cuba). China was also a nuclear power. Both Russia and China may well have viewed an atomic attack or invasion of North Vietnam as an attack on themselves.
It is doubtful if any country of note would have supported the US after such as action.

Quote:
On a different note, why do so many people feel Vietnam was a justifiable enemy? I realize that many people will say the US was attempting to save South Vietnam's freedom and democracy, but what they really were afraid of was the revolutionist's connection to the Soviets and the spread of communist sentiment in general. That said, why do people still feel this was a legitimate fear given the hind sight we have? Vietnam hardly seems to be an aggressive nation, at least in terms of exporting military power; nor do I see them as having significant geo-political influence. The entire concept of "communism" as the enemy seems totally baseless to me. Yes, communist leaders are often bloody dictators, but so are some socialist and capitalist ones. I only see a correlation between communism and a generally low standard of life for average citizens (relative to highly capitalist ones).
Look up "The Domino Theory". Communist government do not put themselves up for re-election every few years, once they get in they are like lice or cockroaches, you have to blast them out or let them die off.
Ancientgeezer is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 10:08 PM   #28

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vezir View Post
I agree museums can be used as a good propaganda material but trust me Vietnamise are the innocents of this war. They are victims of American-USSR relations and their ambitiousions. Also I dont think that North Vietnamise had mass chemical weapons as U.S did to use against their enemies.
Apparently you're not aware of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong extreme atrocities committed between 1945 - 1965. Of course not, why bother showing that part to their country and risk losing a lot of legitimacy and by making uncle Ho look bad. And now we are becoming their allies to help counter balance the Chinese and thereby ensure a smooth transition for the region. Zounds! The irony.

Anyways, What is the difference between US chemical weapons (Which we hear about a lot and N. Vietnamese & VC terrorism in all it's forms? I don't think there is any, but obviously the blind disagree with me. So yeah, whatever.

Anyways, regarding the OP, i most certainly do not believe in the use of nukes in a conventional war, even if we are losing it. So i voted no. However, i do believe in defensive theory put forth by MAD.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 10:38 PM   #29

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,211

There have been a few references to chemical weapons in this thread.

I would just like to note that Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon, it was a defoliant. At the time it was being used it wasn't widely known to be toxic, which is also why so many American veterans of the war were exposed to it.
Scaeva is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 10:58 PM   #30

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
In latrine Rex
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 5,447
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
There have been a few references to chemical weapons in this thread.
No it hasn't. But it has been a predominant talking point outside of the thread. Which leads to the confusion...

Quote:
I would just like to note that Agent Orange was not a chemical weapon, it was a defoliant. At the time it was being used it wasn't widely known to be toxic, which is also why so many American veterans of the war were exposed to it.
Thank you for pointing out what i would have, but nature called.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
hanoi, nucked, states, united, vietnam, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should the SS United States be Saved? jasonponic American History 19 July 15th, 2012 10:12 AM
History of the United States mynameisjoebg American History 9 April 6th, 2012 09:32 AM
United States Broken Up? Brisieis Speculative History 52 January 19th, 2012 09:23 AM
Aristocratic United States oshron Speculative History 13 August 6th, 2009 09:58 PM
United States Zapped PADDYBOY Speculative History 9 December 21st, 2008 06:43 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.