DBWI: Your Opinion on Going Nuclear in Vietnam

For the past forty or so years this has been an object of major debate among the American public. Supporters say it was key to securing dominance over the Vietnamese, showed American power and saved American lives. Detractors say it was genocide in a conflict the United States should not have been involved in at all.

So should we have gone nuclear in the Vietnam war and were the after effects worth it? And what would have happened had we not gone nuclear?

OOC: I give you pretty wide creative freedom from here. Take into account that Nixon considered going nuclear too.
 
The radiation took a long time to overcome, and they are still feeling the effects. When Thieu won the 1979 election, declared himself President-for-life, and put Ky under house arrest, we weren't surprised. Like his mentor Marcos, he managed to put the country on a "Tiger" course before his 2001 death. Now the economy is booming, the country is unified and can look forward to a prosperous future. The new Pres. looks like a young Thatcherite.
 
Well, here in radiation free northwest canada, we're too busy hunting feral dogs for food to worry about extinct countries like Vietnam or the US.
 
The bomb itself didn't cause that much damage. Sure, it took out an important basing area and a fair amount of NVA soldiers but it was a remote area and the fallout wasn't worse then any of the hundreds of nukes tested in the atmosphere. In fact, it may have been cleaner then most.

The problem with the bomb was that it removed the stigma of nukes and without it, I dubt we would have seen the 3-5 bombs dropped in anger since then.
 
Top