DBWI: No Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange

IC: By the way, for those of you old enough to remember the 5 million Japanese who came to America between 1970-75 as part of the "Noah's Ark 69" program, how do you think Nixon handled everything? Firstly, we do have to remember that, although most Westerners were generally accepting of the new arrivals, many non-liberal types east of the Rockies were not happy about it; some folks may still vividly remember the Cleveland riots in '71, not to mention the ones all over several of the Southern states in the autumn of '74(along with the lynchings in Doddsville, MS, Edgefield, S.C., and Tyler, Texas). :(

Sure, Nixon did make a good effort to stop the violence from escalating, but could he have gone further? Most liberals and many moderates applauded his actions, but he lost a lot of support from the more prejudiced sections of the right, especially in the South.

When one considers how five million had to leave the country, it's kind of amazing how Japan managed to forge the Manila Security Pact and become a major power. But they managed it - which probably says a huge amount about the people and their sheer determination.

In answer to your question... I think that Nixon did what he could with the tools he had available. Of course, states' rights activists took major issue with the expansion of the FBI and their use to investigate anti-immigrant crimes, but it was really the only thing he could do.

Mind you, unpleasant though that part of American history was... It did contribute massively to the growth of Civil Rights. Without it, America probably wouldn't have got so far as it has today.
 
OOC: This is crazy. China might have done some damage to the Soviet Far East. In return, China might have ceased to exist.

OOC: Yes, but I seriously doubt that the USSR would have lasted long after said war - once weakened, it'd probably disintegrate slowly.

IC: Mind you, while the USSR went for a nose-dive, 'Communism' still endures in Yugoslavia. OK, it's really state capitalism - Tito was smart enough to open Yugoslav markets after the USSR began to undergo its internal difficulties and to begin reforms - but the Communist Party still holds onto power (though it has been argued that that's not a bad thing, since the Communist Party is the only thing strong enough to keep such an ethnically-diverse country together) and it's still a very leftist welfare-oriented state.
 
South Vietnanese forces would not have occupied Hanoi in April 1975, With the Soviet Union and China both effectively destroyed North Vietnam lost its' two main arms suppliers and political backers. With the Viet Cong badly damaged during the 1968 Tet Offensive government forces, backed by the US had effecively destroyed the insurgency by the end of 1973. Much the same happened to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia allowing the US to end an unpopular war.

Following the Con Tien Border incident in February1975 the well equipped ARVN invaded North Vietnam, smashed the NVA employng top of the range US weapons systems such as the TOW AGW and the M48A5 MBT. ARVN got to combat test a few of the M60A2 "Starship" MBTs during the invasion but it's perdformance was disapointing leading to the cancelation of the project in 1978.

Following the implementation of the Carter Plan Vietnam was rebuilt by 1982 and, while not yet one of the Asian Tigers due to on-going corruption issues is performing well.
 
Following the implementation of the Carter Plan Vietnam was rebuilt by 1982 and, while not yet one of the Asian Tigers due to on-going corruption issues is performing well.

True. Though mind you, probably not in the way that the Americans hoped back in the day. Vietnam's one of the Manila Security Pact, meaning they're an ally of Tokyo. OK, the MSP is an ally of the US, but...yeah, the US and MSP aren't enemies, and they probably won't be, but they're definitely rivals. And American direct influence in SE Asia has been entirely replaced by the MSP...
 
True. Though mind you, probably not in the way that the Americans hoped back in the day. Vietnam's one of the Manila Security Pact, meaning they're an ally of Tokyo. OK, the MSP is an ally of the US, but...yeah, the US and MSP aren't enemies, and they probably won't be, but they're definitely rivals. And American direct influence in SE Asia has been entirely replaced by the MSP...

A lot of the trouble is about trade agreements and economic rivalries . And, of course the MSP has internal territorial disputes, the most serious of which remains the Spratley Islands claimed by several powers including Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan. China also has a claim but is in no position to press that for the time being. Maybe if one of the warlorrds manages to reunify the country this might change but not for a couple of decades at least.
 
South Vietnanese forces would not have occupied Hanoi in April 1975, With the Soviet Union and China both effectively destroyed North Vietnam lost its' two main arms suppliers and political backers. With the Viet Cong badly damaged during the 1968 Tet Offensive government forces, backed by the US had effecively destroyed the insurgency by the end of 1973. Much the same happened to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia allowing the US to end an unpopular war.

Following the Con Tien Border incident in February1975 the well equipped ARVN invaded North Vietnam, smashed the NVA employng top of the range US weapons systems such as the TOW AGW and the M48A5 MBT. ARVN got to combat test a few of the M60A2 "Starship" MBTs during the invasion but it's perdformance was disapointing leading to the cancelation of the project in 1978.

Following the implementation of the Carter Plan Vietnam was rebuilt by 1982 and, while not yet one of the Asian Tigers due to on-going corruption issues is performing well.

True. Though mind you, probably not in the way that the Americans hoped back in the day. Vietnam's one of the Manila Security Pact, meaning they're an ally of Tokyo. OK, the MSP is an ally of the US, but...yeah, the US and MSP aren't enemies, and they probably won't be, but they're definitely rivals. And American direct influence in SE Asia has been entirely replaced by the MSP...

North Vietnam should have won. It would have been a Asian Tigers if South Vietnam lost and the North took over.

OOC: South Vietnam can never! won the war.
 
A lot of the trouble is about trade agreements and economic rivalries

Yeah. And it doesn't help that the MSP only recognised Taiwan as the legitimate ruler of China rather than the Free Republic the Americans wanted to prop up in Manchuria.

Of course, a cynic might say that they recognise Taiwan because Taiwan has so far shown no ability at extending their control beyond the South...:rolleyes:
 
Has anyone read Harry Turtledove's The War Will Not Be Televised ? Apparently, Turtledove's book paints a pretty depressing world without the Sino-Soviet Conflict. He has Nixon win in 1968, Vietnam collapses to the Communist forces, China undergoes a genocidal cultural revolution, followed by Laos, and Republican presidential control until roughly 1992.
 
But I mean seriously, Vietnam is recovering quite nicely, certainly better than the Chinese. The Asian Tigers are Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Japan if I remember correctly right?
 
But I mean seriously, Vietnam is recovering quite nicely, certainly better than the Chinese. The Asian Tigers are Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Japan if I remember correctly right?

Vietnam had a magor boost during the 1980s under the Carter Plan very like that of Germany and Japan during the 1950s under the Marshall Plan.

The main thing holding Vietnam back from being an Asian Tiger like Korea, the Phillipines an Taiwan s the corruption. Th Phillipines also is kown for corruption. Vietnasm of course is still catching up fom he rebuilding of all the war damage of the Vietnam War and is working to reduce corruption. Vietnam will soon catch up and could well become a Tiger economy some time inthe 2020s.
 
Yeah. And it doesn't help that the MSP only recognised Taiwan as the legitimate ruler of China rather than the Free Republic the Americans wanted to prop up in Manchuria.

Of course, a cynic might say that they recognise Taiwan because Taiwan has so far shown no ability at extending their control beyond the South...:rolleyes:

In reality, with all the warlordism nobody runs what used to be China. That said Taiwan does have a lot of influence over the warlords in th northern coastal regions, bank rolling and arming them. Japan. Korea and Vietnam d much the same in their own regional spheres.

As for the former Soviet Union Moscow lost control of their eastern region. The Siberian Republic ended up being the major successor state Elsewhere in the former Soviet Far East there are a lot of successor states such as Tajikistan and Mongolia. While there are regular border clashes there have not yet been any really serious wars. Everybody still remembers 1969 and some of those states may control a few weapons from the remains of the old Soviet arsenal at least according to rumour. Then there are possible bio and chemical weapons. Since everyone knows what happened in 1969 nobody wants to risk another WMD use in that region.

West of the Urals many of the Soviet Western Republics (Ukraine, Baltic States broke away from the Soviet Union which leaves Moscow running the Russian Republic itself. These republics recovered quite well having recieved relatively little nuclear war damage.

The Russians have always been bitter about their loss of empire and the current president, Vladimir Putin has engaged in a number of limited border wars with Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya and number of the warlords eas of the Urals. So far here has been little adjustment of borders but Putin will likely want to expand east within the next few years. With Ukraine and Georgia about to join the EU which has a strong regional security interest in Eastern Europe (to back up the economic interests - Ukranian agriculture could well make it the EU's bread basket) Putin is unlikly to press border claims to the west of Russia any time so. herefore he has to go east which will likely brng about an eventual clash wih the Siberian Republic perhaps in the 202-0s or 2030s. Russia itself is still to weak to do anything really serious fr a decade or two.

Or perhaps I may be under estimating Putin who is clearly a very clever and extremely ruthless leader. His strong links with the New Russia Party my tell us something about future ambitions to rebuild Russia as a Great Power in the 21st Century
 
The Russians have always been bitter about their loss of empire and the current president, Vladimir Putin has engaged in a number of limited border wars with Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya and number of the warlords eas of the Urals. So far here has been little adjustment of borders but Putin will likely want to expand east within the next few years. With Ukraine and Georgia about to join the EU which has a strong regional security interest in Eastern Europe (to back up the economic interests - Ukranian agriculture could well make it the EU's bread basket) Putin is unlikly to press border claims to the west of Russia any time so. herefore he has to go east which will likely brng about an eventual clash wih the Siberian Republic perhaps in the 202-0s or 2030s. Russia itself is still to weak to do anything really serious fr a decade or two.

Point. Though mind you, as long as East Germany keeps refraining from joining the EC, the chances of Ukraine actually getting to join are fairly small (EC leaders want a continuous line of territory, and East German refusal means that quite a few old Warsaw Pact countries also refuse to join, so they're the missing link in the chain).

Putin knows that, too. Why else are him and General Secretary Zimmer so friendly recently?

I really don't like that Zimmer woman. OK, East Germany is a multiparty democracy now, and she was fairly elected, but she seems like a massive throwback to the bad old days. Mind you, the General Secretary's position is limited to a single five-year term, so it could be worse.
 
Top