WI: US Military gets the go ahead to invade North Vietnam?
- Thread starter Darknick
- Start date
A reply you'll get is Soviet or Chinese intervention (at least depending on the time period of invasion). A way to alleviate that may be to distract them with a Sino-Soviet war.
I imagine the outcome depends on when. Early invasion of the North increases the odds of Chinese intervention but is much more acceptable domestically. Later on, say post Sino-Soviet split or when Nixon is president you probably avoid Chinese intervention but have major protests against it in the US. MAD probably prevents any direct Soviet involvement.
China promptly slaps the US out of North Vietnam, along with others, as it doesn't have enough forces to do so intially, and even if it does, would have to deal with gurriella warfare that would make South Vietnam look tame by comparison.
This isn't even getting into the potential issues this have with nuclear weapons, for example.
This isn't even getting into the potential issues this have with nuclear weapons, for example.
I don't know... North Vietnam would not be happy about the Chinese being there if the US retreat back to the South Vietnamese border, the Vietnamese would change focus I reckon, start smacking China around instead because there is one nation that Vietnam hated more than the US, and it was it's giant Northern neighbor.
Let's assume no direct Chinese or Soviet intervention.
What are we talking about in terms of an invasion force? What's available? A sortie of 100,000? 200,000? 500,000? Believe it or not, there's a limit on the number of soldiers available for the meat grinder. We have major commitments in Europe, in the Phillipines, in South Korea, Japan, South Vietnam, Thailand, etc., troops at home, etc.
When does this invasion take place?
How much is it going to cost?
In South Vietnam, we placed up to 500,000 troops with logistic support in a friendly government. The government we're invading will not be friendly, will not be providing or supporting logistics. Everything we move in and build will be under fire.
This would be a scale of undertaking equivalent to Inchon or Normandy. Not something easily undertaken. Do we still have the amphibious capacity? Or are we going up the coast.
We can anticipate incredibly heavy fighting every step of the way, before we wipe out conventional military forces. Urban fighting especially is going to be a bloodbath.
After that, the North Vietnamese communists melt into the population, and we're getting ambushed every time we turn around. Good luck winning hearts and minds after we napalmed half the country getting in there.
The Ho Chi Minh trail will start at the Chinese Border, almost no way to interdict it without buying a serious throw down with China.
No happy resolution. Five years, ten years later, we're still in Vietnam, the body count is huge, the SVA government is even more of a joke, and we can't get out.
What are we talking about in terms of an invasion force? What's available? A sortie of 100,000? 200,000? 500,000? Believe it or not, there's a limit on the number of soldiers available for the meat grinder. We have major commitments in Europe, in the Phillipines, in South Korea, Japan, South Vietnam, Thailand, etc., troops at home, etc.
When does this invasion take place?
How much is it going to cost?
In South Vietnam, we placed up to 500,000 troops with logistic support in a friendly government. The government we're invading will not be friendly, will not be providing or supporting logistics. Everything we move in and build will be under fire.
This would be a scale of undertaking equivalent to Inchon or Normandy. Not something easily undertaken. Do we still have the amphibious capacity? Or are we going up the coast.
We can anticipate incredibly heavy fighting every step of the way, before we wipe out conventional military forces. Urban fighting especially is going to be a bloodbath.
After that, the North Vietnamese communists melt into the population, and we're getting ambushed every time we turn around. Good luck winning hearts and minds after we napalmed half the country getting in there.
The Ho Chi Minh trail will start at the Chinese Border, almost no way to interdict it without buying a serious throw down with China.
No happy resolution. Five years, ten years later, we're still in Vietnam, the body count is huge, the SVA government is even more of a joke, and we can't get out.
What if the US threatens an invasion..with the "counter-threat" of a Chinese intervention? The North Vietnamese are then faced with a choice...if the Chinese intervene then the US is driven out but the Chinese occupy them (which, I would assume from a Vietnamese viewpoint, is worse); or, the Chinese stay out and the US pounds the North while controlling the South..then making a settlement with the North. Does that make sense? The North may see the situation as a lose lose..and settle for a divided nation...if they believed we would actually invade.
For starters it means mobilisation. With all of the attendant complications and fun for the domestic population. Which probably means no great society OR no space race…I'm betting it is no great society. Just how hot do you want your home front to be.
Then, some time in the early 1970s, during the fourth or fifth year of occupation probably, the oil exporting countries get their political business in order and Fordism ends for the United States, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
(I'm betting on Freikorps by 1973 tbh)
yours,
Sam R.
If the US are doing this, this may excuse by example North Korea along allies to go South, ya know... Tit for tat...
What you make of it is that Hanoi's refusal to cut ties with Moscow when the Sino-Soviet split heated up lead Beijing to cut off support in a hissy fit.
It depends.Early in the war(before Nixon) they might have been a China and Soviet Union intervention but I don't think the Soviet Union would attack without China.I have a feeling 100-200k would be the force the US would commit.
So if the US invasion happens before or even a little after the split, China will likely not rescind its support.
I don't think that the Joint Chiefs would recommend an invasion of North Vietnam. I could foresee an expanded raids into North Vietnam, up to a company level. However, eventually one of those companies will get stomped hard and what level of response will occur.
Perhaps a better way is Linebacker in 1966 / 1967 over North Vietnam with expanded raiding. Although what does the United States seek to gain by this course of action?
Sure it will hurt the North Vietnamese, but they will recover eventually. After all they firmly believed in their goal of unifying the country beneath a communist dictatorship.
Internationally it will hurt the image of the United States, after all the Soviet Union did not bomb Pakistan during their involvement in the 1980's. Will this course of action strengthen South Vietnam, maybe in the short to medium term. However, significant structural changes will be required to save that state.
Perhaps a better way is Linebacker in 1966 / 1967 over North Vietnam with expanded raiding. Although what does the United States seek to gain by this course of action?
Sure it will hurt the North Vietnamese, but they will recover eventually. After all they firmly believed in their goal of unifying the country beneath a communist dictatorship.
Internationally it will hurt the image of the United States, after all the Soviet Union did not bomb Pakistan during their involvement in the 1980's. Will this course of action strengthen South Vietnam, maybe in the short to medium term. However, significant structural changes will be required to save that state.
And again, it WILL be used by a communist power to do something similar possibly like South Korea, I bet, while USA get OBSESSED over 'Nam... Think about it - the Cuban crisis supposedly had been 'mirrored' by missiles removed from Turkey if I am right...
If the USA strike North Vietnam, USSR, China or such may strike back in return.
If the USA strike North Vietnam, USSR, China or such may strike back in return.
This is why I only see an invasion of the north happening in the event of a Sino-Soviet War in '68/'69, and probably one that has gone nuclear/nasty. With the genie out of the bottle, Nixon (or whomever) can use those 'tactical' nuclear strikes they wanted.
BlairWitch749
Banned
cold war hot featured a scenario of a massive two corps invasion in 1970 after the sino soviet split
an armored corps marched down the coastal highway and another corp of specialized divisions captured haiphong in an amphibious landing and created an airhead around hanoi to create a staging area for rapidly advancing ground troops
an armored corps marched down the coastal highway and another corp of specialized divisions captured haiphong in an amphibious landing and created an airhead around hanoi to create a staging area for rapidly advancing ground troops
What would be the objective of an invasion of North Vietnam? Occupying and forcibly reunifying it with South Vietnam won't work. The only thing I could potentially see is a small invasion that occupies strategic choke points, in which the invaders would serve to soak up the NVA and VC attacks while the South tries to stabilize itself. Even then this means risking massive casualties for very little.
As already stated, the military would rather be allowed for unrestricted targeting in Rolling Thunder that they only got late in the war with Nixon. Having Rolling Thunder look more like Linebacker I & II and mining Haiphong harbor earlier in the war would accomplish more at degrading the NVA anyway. Plus, it wouldn't invite foreign communist intervention like an invasion.
As already stated, the military would rather be allowed for unrestricted targeting in Rolling Thunder that they only got late in the war with Nixon. Having Rolling Thunder look more like Linebacker I & II and mining Haiphong harbor earlier in the war would accomplish more at degrading the NVA anyway. Plus, it wouldn't invite foreign communist intervention like an invasion.