AHC/WI: Nuclear weapons used in Vietnam

Narnia

Banned
This would make the US look very bad and make the Communists look like the innocent victims so it may help the Communists that way. It would also make nukes seem more like any other weapon in war, which is not a good thing to say the least. The odds of the cold war going hot would go up quite a bit.
 
I'm not saying it's a perfect fit. But I do think it's noteworthy that, while there are examples of the Soviets doing this stuff in periods of relative parity, are there any examples of them being successfully intimidated into keeping quiet? Closest thing I'm aware of is the almost-detente in the late 50s.

Edit to Add: I don't mean intimidated into backing down, I mean intimidated into not starting anything in the first place.


THere HAS to be scenarios in the KGB files that were never implemented because they were to risky.
 
There's a huge difference between conventionally bombing the hell out of someone and nuclear bombing the hell out of someone.

My point was that we were bombing the hell out of Vietnam, and the Soviets were unable or unwilling to do anything about it.

Other than, of course supplying the NOrth Vietnamese.

Which they were doing anyways.
 
THere HAS to be scenarios in the KGB files that were never implemented because they were to risky.

I'm sure there were. But my point isn't that they went all-out nuts whenever the US surpassed them in weapons, it's that their risk tolerance changed over time, and was proportional to the perceived imbalance in the strategic situation.

Let me put it this way: if the Soviets had achieved military superiority over the US, would we have reacted by keeping quiet, or would we have blustered while we frantically built back up to parity? The closest thing to that happening IOTL was the post-Vietnam 70s, and we got Reagan out of it.
 
I'm sure there were. But my point isn't that they went all-out nuts whenever the US surpassed them in weapons, it's that their risk tolerance changed over time, and was proportional to the perceived imbalance in the strategic situation.

Let me put it this way: if the Soviets had achieved military superiority over the US, would we have reacted by keeping quiet, or would we have blustered while we frantically built back up to parity? The closest thing to that happening IOTL was the post-Vietnam 70s, and we got Reagan out of it.

Would the use of nukes in Korean and/or Vietnam have really changed the strategic situation?

If the US managed to unify Korea under a friendly government, that would put US forces pretty close to Vladivostok, but is that enough to give the US a significant advantage? After all US forces in South Korea and Japan are already in pretty good position to hit the Soviet Far East.

If the US used nukes in Vietnam, in a tactical role, the most I can imagine happening is that South Vietnam survives.

And that means what?

The US keeps Saigon as a base. If South Vietnam becomes prosperous and strong, that nice, but won't happen until after the Soviet/China split.
 
Would the use of nukes in Korean and/or Vietnam have really changed the strategic situation?

If the US managed to unify Korea under a friendly government, that would put US forces pretty close to Vladivostok, but is that enough to give the US a significant advantage? After all US forces in South Korea and Japan are already in pretty good position to hit the Soviet Far East.

If the US used nukes in Vietnam, in a tactical role, the most I can imagine happening is that South Vietnam survives.

And that means what?

The US keeps Saigon as a base. If South Vietnam becomes prosperous and strong, that nice, but won't happen until after the Soviet/China split.

I don't think it would change the strategic situation much, but it would change the Soviets' perception of the US and what we're liable to do if provoked. We're much more threatening if we're using atom bombs any time we want to swat some third world country down. It also significantly reduces the psychological barrier to general war. And an America that's willing to use atom bombs like that is probably going to have a different and more unpleasant culture than OTL.
 
I don't think it would change the strategic situation much, but it would change the Soviets' perception of the US and what we're liable to do if provoked. We're much more threatening if we're using atom bombs any time we want to swat some third world country down. It also significantly reduces the psychological barrier to general war. And an America that's willing to use atom bombs like that is probably going to have a different and more unpleasant culture than OTL.

Bombing the Crap out of Vietnam OTL, did not mean we were more likely to bomb Russia.


And have you ever noticed how almost all the time, when someone makes a complaint about some atrocity, or oppression, the person or government they are complaining about just HAPPENS to be some type of opponent of theirs?

Reagan talked a lot about religious oppression in the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia? Not so much.

Hell, consider how often people make up stop to be upset about, with various conspiracy theories. (no examples provided for obvious reasons;))


The ideological basis for modern anti-war, or anti-americanism would remain the same.

Indeed, a bigger difference IMO, would be if we WOM in Korea and Vietnam.
 
Bombing the Crap out of Vietnam OTL, did not mean we were more likely to bomb Russia.

There's a big difference between atom bombs and conventional bombs, both on a practical level and psychologically. There were a lot of reasons WW3 was never fought, but a big one was the nuclear taboo, the sense that these weapons are different. If we're throwing these things around in every little shitfight we get into, then that taboo doesn't exist any more, so the psychological barrier to escalating to world war is lower. It's still there, but it's lower.

And have you ever noticed how almost all the time, when someone makes a complaint about some atrocity, or oppression, the person or government they are complaining about just HAPPENS to be some type of opponent of theirs?

Reagan talked a lot about religious oppression in the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia? Not so much.

Hell, consider how often people make up stop to be upset about, with various conspiracy theories. (no examples provided for obvious reasons;))

The ideological basis for modern anti-war, or anti-americanism would remain the same.

My point isn't that the ideological basis would change, but that the Soviet leadership's perception of the American leadership would change.

Indeed, a bigger difference IMO, would be if we WOM in Korea and Vietnam.

I am not qualified to comment on that.
 
There's a big difference between atom bombs and conventional bombs, both on a practical level and psychologically. There were a lot of reasons WW3 was never fought, but a big one was the nuclear taboo, the sense that these weapons are different. If we're throwing these things around in every little shitfight we get into, then that taboo doesn't exist any more, so the psychological barrier to escalating to world war is lower. It's still there, but it's lower.

OTL, we didn't have WWIII because it would have been, at best the worst war the world has ever seen, if not the End of The World.

Nukes in Korea and Vietnam does not change that.

I see what you're saying, but I think you are over stating it.


My point isn't that the ideological basis would change, but that the Soviet leadership's perception of the American leadership would change.

More thinking about the US culture part of your comment. But also relevant to European and THird world reactions.



I am not qualified to comment on that.


I'm sure there have been threads on it. Hell, even Edward Blake mentioned it in Watchmen.

And he is certainly qualified to comment on it.:)
 
OTL, we didn't have WWIII because it would have been, at best the worst war the world has ever seen, if not the End of The World.

Nukes in Korea and Vietnam does not change that.

I see what you're saying, but I think you are over stating it.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. :) And for what it's worth, I'm not saying it makes WW3 inevitable, just more likely.

I'm sure there have been threads on it. Hell, even Edward Blake mentioned it in Watchmen.

And he is certainly qualified to comment on it.:)

That may well be so, but I am not. :p
 
If the war of Korea had seen nukes, by the time of Vietnam there would be massive evidence of the long term effects of their use as a tactical weapon. The worldwide public outcry against them would be higher than OTL.

If it was viewed as the key to winning the Korean War, then Americans would probably still support it when/if Vietnam rolls around.
 

RousseauX

Donor
was NV a real ally like those in the Warsaw Pact, or just another country they supported because it opposed 'the west', rather like they did for the Arab states opposing Israel? I'd think the USSR's response would be rather like that of the Middle East after the 67 war... massive shipments of supplies and a lot of condemnation in the UN. The problem of the USSR supplying nukes to NV would be that it would be brutally obvious where they came from, and you'd have Soviet nukes being used on US troops...
Or the Soviets can simply elect to use a nuclear device elsewhere in response.

By using a nuclear weapons to fight a war that is ultimately rather strategically meaningless you've dramatically uped the stakes in the thereshold of force used in the cold war: bringing everyone one step closer to full scale nuclear warfare if not over the course of the month after usage, then the next decade or two.
 
How often were there situations in vietnam where a nuke would make any sense? You cant nuke guerrillas, and the us never bombed hanoi, iirc, so what would you nuke?
 
How often were there situations in vietnam where a nuke would make any sense? You cant nuke guerrillas, and the us never bombed hanoi, iirc, so what would you nuke?

Sam Cohen - who was a RAND think-tanker and all-around really weird dude - wanted to use neutron bombs on suspected guerilla encampments in Vietnam. The idea being to airburst low-yield neutron bombs high enough above the ground that significant blast effects would not reach the surface, so it would kill/sicken anyone within the effected region without destroying the civilian infrastructure. His reasoning being that, while horrible, this would be better than doing the same thing with conventional bombing, which would destroy the civilian infrastructure as well.
 
Last edited:
That's not the way things work. You get a dangerous person who is a threat to you, you start looking real hard for ways to neutralize that threat. Things escalate rather than defuse. Get him before he gets me.

For the vast majority of the Cold War we did NOT treat the SU that way, and they were dangerous to us.

The policy was simply containment despite the belief that the SU wanted to dominate the world.
 
Top