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 8th, 2012, 12:57 AM   #31

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 9,428
Blog Entries: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Trajan View Post
Well I think the united states should have dropped a Nuke on Hanoi, North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. I say that because North Vietnam would have been nuked then North Vietamises troops would have probally pulled out or would have been confused.
Dropping a nuclear bomb over Hanoi would have solved nothing.

The context had changed a lot from the end of WW II and nuclear weapons were known for their destructive potential.

A part this [which made it less "easy" to use nuclear bombs], Vietnam was an extension of the world Communist movement in that period, so to bomb Hanoi would haven't forced Vietnam to surrender. I remember that Chinese Communists in those years said that to overestimate nukes meant to underestimate the "power of the people" [this mean that nukes or not nukes Commies would have kept on fighting, anyway].

A second basic point is that Communist nuclear powers would have nuked Seul. Why? According to the principals of the "terror balance". You nuke a city of an ally or ours? Ok, we nuke a city of an ally of yours, where's the problem?

And I doubt we would have seen a nuclear escalation: the superpowers would have stopped there the regional confrontation with a great and peaceful conference [may be "Asia Peace Conference"] with crossed accusation of excess, of unjustified usage of nuclear weaponry ... and so on ...

So, no. To nuke Hanoi would have uncovered a kind of Pandora's box.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 8th, 2012, 12:59 AM   #32

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

no one should "NUCK" no one.
infestør is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:26 AM   #33

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
no one should "NUCK" no one.
More than one way to mispell that intention.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:30 AM   #34

Naomasa298's Avatar
Bog of the Year
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 21,383

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
no one should "NUCK" no one.
No one should "nuck" "ANYONE".
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 01:32 AM   #35

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 3,394
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by oshron View Post
in one word: NO.
I agree but even louder
funakison is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 04:17 AM   #36

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
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.
There was some use of chemical weapons but it was restricted to tear gas not lethal ones.

Peter Arnett, the famous Baghdad GW1 reporter and drama junkie famously got in trouble for trying to adjust stories to sugggest the tear gas was actually lethal and US forces had attacked non-combatants with it.
It didnt do his career much good!
Nemowork is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 04:58 AM   #37

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
Apparently you're not aware of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong extreme atrocities committed between 1945 - 1965..
Sadly the South Vietnamese government also committed its own fair share of atrocities in the 54-64 period, nobody's hands were clean in this war.
redcoat is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:17 AM   #38

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
There was some use of chemical weapons but it was restricted to tear gas not lethal ones.

Peter Arnett, the famous Baghdad GW1 reporter and drama junkie famously got in trouble for trying to adjust stories to sugggest the tear gas was actually lethal and US forces had attacked non-combatants with it.
It didnt do his career much good!
I remember that quite well and Arnett wasn't alone. There was substance to his story as the normal tear gas used for civil disturbances at the time, CN, was replaced by CS gas in "military strength". While CS gas is classed as non-lethal and is still widely used around the world for crowd dispersal and its use in the open air is rarely (but can be) fatal, the US use was to pump specially prepared CS dissolved in a solvent in huge quantities into Viet-Cong tunnel entrances and caves. The enclosed space and high concentration could easily be fatal. The UK who were, and I believe still are, the world's biggest manufacturer through Combined Tactical Systems Inc. (CSI), ALS Technologies, and Defense Technologies (owned by BAE Systems) supplied the US in the Vietnam years and supply many other countries around the world with the dry-mix chemicals and ready made gas.
While CS is now banned for military use it is still widely used by police forces. It is clear from the fatalities from UK made CS that "military strength" is being used for crowd control by the Israelis, Syrians, Bahreinis and others.
Anyone who has done military training in the last forty years would have had a whiff of CS--now, those that have--imagine being in that for half an hour!
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 05:24 AM   #39

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
There was some use of chemical weapons but it was restricted to tear gas not lethal ones.

Peter Arnett, the famous Baghdad GW1 reporter and drama junkie famously got in trouble for trying to adjust stories to sugggest the tear gas was actually lethal and US forces had attacked non-combatants with it.
It didnt do his career much good!
Just wracking my brain, wasn't it John Pilger rather than Arnett? Or were they both singing the same song?
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 07:02 AM   #40

tvomx314's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: American living in HaNoi VN
Posts: 215

Should Hanoi have been nuked?!!! Really? Should we have killed thousands of more civilians who were NEVER a threat to us? I'll hold my tongue here and stay civil although the question hardly deserves it.
tvomx314 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.