Nixon Duck Hooks North Vietnam

In 1969 the Nixon team thought about using nuclear weapons against military and economic targets in and around Hanoi, the mining of Haiphong harbor and bombing of the borders in November 1969 they ditched Duck Hook, starting in 1965 the USAF started talking about bombing the Red River Valley dams and dikes which would lead to massive flooding and destroy that year's rice crop, together with shutting down NV major harbor at Haiphong would lead to mass starvation, Nixon and Kissinger talk about the plan in this the most chilling moment of the Nixon tapes

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.
Kissinger: I agree with you.
President Nixon: We've got to use massive force.
Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?
Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand - fifteen?
Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.
President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
President: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes

this too was largely ditched, though during Operation Linebacker II in 1972 some limited bombing of the dikes took place, and under Operation Linebacker Haiphong was mined

so what if Nixon bombed, with out nukes, the whole dike and dam system of the Red River, and major targets in and around Hanoi on top of mining Haiphong in 1972 (around the same time as Linebacker I ) ?
 
For Mercy's sake he will better use Nuke directly instead of destroying the dam and torture the Vietnamese with long and agonizing death by flash drowning, where the victim get their lungs partially filled with water and mud but land on dry patch of land instead of quick death by immersive drowning. This is the most painful death available while the victim is fully conscious and most likely extremely frightened.

At least fusion bomb is relatively clean and the death will be quick
 
I honestly don't know what to say to this, other than that Nixon was a complete dick. I can't even begin to imagine how the Soviets would have responded to Hanoi eating a can of instant sunshine. You can bet that it won't be pretty.
 
let me repeat I'm not asking about Nixon using nukes in Vietnam, I'm asking about the distraction of the Dams and dikes of the Red River system, and targets in Hanoi, on top of OTL's mining of Haiphong, with convectional weapons
 
let me repeat I'm not asking about Nixon using nukes in Vietnam, I'm asking about the distraction of the Dams and dikes of the Red River system, and targets in Hanoi, on top of OTL's mining of Haiphong, with convectional weapons

But what you're talking about is still tantamount to the use of nuclear weapons, and is arguably an act of genocide and therefore a crime against humanity, since you're talking about the drowning of at least a couple hundred thousand people on top of an engineered famine. It may not matter if the Americans don't use nukes because the Soviets and the North Vietnamese may not see the difference.
 
let me repeat I'm not asking about Nixon using nukes in Vietnam, I'm asking about the distraction of the Dams and dikes of the Red River system, and targets in Hanoi, on top of OTL's mining of Haiphong, with convectional weapons
This wikipedia page attempts a comprehensive overview of plans for non-nuclear attacks on the dikes. Apparently there's stil some he-said-she-said debate RE any of the Red River infrastructure ever being targeted or not.

Nixon's war is the Vietnam war I know the least about; but I suspect a serious campaign to take out the dams infrastructure, ala a modern day version of what Barnes Wallis et al did to Jerry, only bigger, that's too much a political hot potato. Even for the "madman".
 
But what you're talking about is still tantamount to the use of nuclear weapons, and is maybe arguably a crime against humanity, since you;re talking about the drowning of at least a couple hundred thousand people on top of an engineered famine. It may not matter if the Americans don't use nukes because the Soviets and the North Vietnamese may not see the difference.

I don't disagree that its as bad, and a massive crime against humanity, that said nukes have a bigger emotional punch, and are harder to cover up, on the Soviets, well in OTL on May 22, 1972 Nixon and Pat went to the USSR and were met warmly, while Linebacker 1 was underway, and Vietnam's food, medical, and infrastructure imports were being cut off through the mining of harbors, and the Soviets said nothing about it, or the limited bombing we undertook in Linebacker II, I think the USSR liked the idea of warmer US-USSR relations more then they liked NV, in OTL both China and the USSR backed off support of NV for better US relations, which lead to the Paris Peace that the NV didn't want
 
The little-remembered bombing campaign against the dams and dikes of North Korea in 1953 had mixed results at best. This experience suggests it is entirely possible that DUCK HOOK would have been considerably less lethal and effective than its advocates hoped for. That said, deliberate flooding and starvation of civilian populations as an intentional aim of military operations is bad form, to put it mildly. Very bad form.
 
I don't disagree that its as bad, and a massive crime against humanity, that said nukes have a bigger emotional punch, and are harder to cover up, on the Soviets, well in OTL on May 22, 1972 Nixon and Pat went to the USSR and were met warmly, while Linebacker 1 was underway, and Vietnam's food, medical, and infrastructure imports were being cut off through the mining of harbors, and the Soviets said nothing about it, or the limited bombing we undertook in Linebacker II, I think the USSR liked the idea of warmer US-USSR relations more then they liked NV, in OTL both China and the USSR backed off support of NV for better US relations, which lead to the Paris Peace that the NV didn't want

Agreed, since when did either the Soviets or the Maoists give a damn about hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners? Outside of using it for propaganda I don't think it would have effected their relations with the US much.
 
For all the cries of oh what a monster he was it's not as though it's anything out of the ordinary in warfare. In the Great War the Entente prosecuted a naval blockade of Germany to deny them both raw materials and foodstuffs which lead to food shortages and civilian deaths. In WW2 the Western Allies aside from carrying out indiscriminate area bombing also targeted factories that manufactured fertiliser since some of the materials were dual use and also needed for armaments, again it led to fairly large drops in agricultural output and food shortages.

How many North Vietnamese were killed by American air strikes during the conflict anyway? Just checking the Genocide says potentially around 65,000 civilian deaths plus anywhere from 40,000 to 150,000 deaths in Cambodia in the linked conflict. Throw in even more for Laos as well. So conservatively they killed at least half the estimated casualties of Operation Duck Hook, but because it was done conventionally and in dribs and drabs much more low-key. Considering all the ground forces deaths that we haven't even been counted, aside from the best solution of just ending the war, an argument could be made that Duck Hook was the best politically acceptable option to end the war as quickly as possible to try and avoid another six or seven years of bloodshed.
 
I think people are being unfair to Nixon. I suspect that this kind of "cabinet" discussion has repeatedly occurred in the United States. If politicians have access to nuclear weapons, they are going to consider their use. I would want a lot more context before seeing this as anything other than an exercise in specifying political terrain exhaustively.

Richard Nixon said:
The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes

The element that makes me think that this is work-shopping is "I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes." Nixon is appealing for a diversity of advice here.

Whether that advice was ever seriously considered for implementation, rather than just work-shopped or contingency planned would require much more context.

Doesn't change the character of the man Nixon though.

yours,
Sam R.
 
The irony is, whatever the political and diplomatic reaction (which will not be good), bombing the dikes still won't win the war. By 1969 - heck, by 1965 - the US had already lost in Vietnam. The insurgency in the south was totally self-supporting, and eventual victory by the Vietnamese communists was inevitable.

You wouldn't see the Soviets or Chinese crossing the nuclear threshold, as it wasn't worth destroying their countries over a few hundred thousand Vietnamese peasants. In future Vietnam-like situations, though, such methods would be considered more acceptable. I'd expect to see, for example, the Soviets bombing Pakistan during the Afghan war - presuming, of course, it still happens.
 
The irony is, whatever the political and diplomatic reaction (which will not be good), bombing the dikes still won't win the war. By 1969 - heck, by 1965 - the US had already lost in Vietnam. The insurgency in the south was totally self-supporting, and eventual victory by the Vietnamese communists was inevitable.

You wouldn't see the Soviets or Chinese crossing the nuclear threshold, as it wasn't worth destroying their countries over a few hundred thousand Vietnamese peasants. In future Vietnam-like situations, though, such methods would be considered more acceptable. I'd expect to see, for example, the Soviets bombing Pakistan during the Afghan war - presuming, of course, it still happens.

Really? My understanding is the insurgency was pretty much wiped out by Tet.

That the rest of the war was North Vietnamese regular soldiers.



Interesting question over the bombing of sanctuaries.

We certainly bombed North Vietnam enough in OTL. Yet the Soviets didn't bomb Pakistan, why?

IMO, North Vietnam wasn't the "sanctuary". China was. A secure source of supplies and weapons.

If we bombed CHINA, that would indicate that Pakistan was fair game, IMO.
 
The irony is, whatever the political and diplomatic reaction (which will not be good), bombing the dikes still won't win the war. By 1969 - heck, by 1965 - the US had already lost in Vietnam. The insurgency in the south was totally self-supporting, and eventual victory by the Vietnamese communists was inevitable.

You wouldn't see the Soviets or Chinese crossing the nuclear threshold, as it wasn't worth destroying their countries over a few hundred thousand Vietnamese peasants. In future Vietnam-like situations, though, such methods would be considered more acceptable. I'd expect to see, for example, the Soviets bombing Pakistan during the Afghan war - presuming, of course, it still happens.

The insurgency in the South is already dead. If America committed such an horrible atrocity it would take quite a while for the North to recover and it would demonstrate the extremes to which the U.S. was willing to go to maintain the sovereignty of the South. It's easy to say you'll accept any amount of casualties to win, it's a bit different if the enemy kills hundreds of thousands of your people and cripples the economy with impunity. The North may have been terrorized to the peace table, or they may have fought on even harder, it's hard to say.
 
Really? My understanding is the insurgency was pretty much wiped out by Tet.

That the rest of the war was North Vietnamese regular soldiers.

The civil war continued into 1976. While the PLAF's manoeuvre capacity was expended, it continued to staff local forces in NFL/PRG controlled areas. Tet killed the capacity for independent action by the southern section of the VWP by removing its organisational responsibility for serious production of units.

And if you don't consider NFL/PRG controlled areas "the insurgency" then what do you think the war was?

yours,
Sam R.
 
Top