No Bombing restrictions against North Vietnam
- Thread starter Euroman26
- Start date
Yeah. If there are no bombing restrictions, then there wil be pressure to use nukes.It goes without saying that that would be a VERY bad idea.
It's hard to say if unrestricted bombing would have achieved enough to win (whatever the hell that means).
It is interesting to note that, during the Christmas bombing, the PoW's noted a sudden, rather dramatic change in the conduct of the guards at the Hanoi Hilton. One of the prisoners, who had also been a prisoner during WW II (how's that for luck??
) noted that the guards started acting like the Germans did in the Stalag once it was clear the war was lost. That makes it tempting to say that Uncle Ho would have folded, but there's no proof that he would have.
It is questionable that even a full-out "surrender" by Hanoi would have achieved any lasting West-positive result. Unlike the ROK, South Vietnam was remarkably unstable politically; it is even possible that an internal revolt would have been enough to topple the Saigon regime the moment the U.S. turned its attention elsewhere. This is the part that revisionist tend to forget, the South Vietnamese government was, in many areas, almost as unpopular as the VC (and some areas were voluntarily VC supporters). It is very difficult to keep an unpopular government in power (as both Iran and Nicaragua demonstrate) without the U.S. actually keeping boots on the ground infinitely.
As far as the PRC, Beijing had NO interest in strapping on the U.S. over Vietnam. The PRC, if anything, would have liked to have struck the Hanoi government themselves, given the historic animosity between the two peoples. They only allowed the USSR to ship weapons across their territory to the Vietnamese for a huge tariff of weapons.
What the USSR would have done is bit more of an open question, but the simple fact of Realpolitik would tend to mitigate against any serious action(s).
It is interesting to note that, during the Christmas bombing, the PoW's noted a sudden, rather dramatic change in the conduct of the guards at the Hanoi Hilton. One of the prisoners, who had also been a prisoner during WW II (how's that for luck??
) noted that the guards started acting like the Germans did in the Stalag once it was clear the war was lost. That makes it tempting to say that Uncle Ho would have folded, but there's no proof that he would have. It is questionable that even a full-out "surrender" by Hanoi would have achieved any lasting West-positive result. Unlike the ROK, South Vietnam was remarkably unstable politically; it is even possible that an internal revolt would have been enough to topple the Saigon regime the moment the U.S. turned its attention elsewhere. This is the part that revisionist tend to forget, the South Vietnamese government was, in many areas, almost as unpopular as the VC (and some areas were voluntarily VC supporters). It is very difficult to keep an unpopular government in power (as both Iran and Nicaragua demonstrate) without the U.S. actually keeping boots on the ground infinitely.
As far as the PRC, Beijing had NO interest in strapping on the U.S. over Vietnam. The PRC, if anything, would have liked to have struck the Hanoi government themselves, given the historic animosity between the two peoples. They only allowed the USSR to ship weapons across their territory to the Vietnamese for a huge tariff of weapons.
What the USSR would have done is bit more of an open question, but the simple fact of Realpolitik would tend to mitigate against any serious action(s).
chronos
Banned
I wasn't aware that there was any restriction on bombing judging by what was happening at the time. this was purely a propaganda story for the gullible.
However, all out-bombing was clearly NOT going to succeed any more than LBJ's
Escalation policy of controlled acts of violence, threats and intimidation and the victim would turn aside and give you want you want.
This doesn't succeed as populations don't react like that.
I recall every escalation caused a huge increase in protests and demonstrations , with 80,000 US students considering themselves revolutionaries by 1968 and 200,000 by 1970. So an explosion would have occurred with paris type revolts in US. cities and US embassies being stormed in European capitals.
It can be imagined how the US. government could have handled this.
However, all out-bombing was clearly NOT going to succeed any more than LBJ's
Escalation policy of controlled acts of violence, threats and intimidation and the victim would turn aside and give you want you want.
This doesn't succeed as populations don't react like that.
I recall every escalation caused a huge increase in protests and demonstrations , with 80,000 US students considering themselves revolutionaries by 1968 and 200,000 by 1970. So an explosion would have occurred with paris type revolts in US. cities and US embassies being stormed in European capitals.
It can be imagined how the US. government could have handled this.
In fact between 1968 & mid 1972 the entireity of North Vietnam was "off limits" to U.S. bomber crews. Even when limited bombing was renewed
there were actually severe restriction on targets, some of which would have utterly devestated North Vietnam. They range from the Red River dike complex to the Haiphong Harbor and dock area to Hanoi itself. In December of '72 the U.S. took off the gloves for less than 2 weeks during Linebacker II and hit most of the heretofore restricted target areas. The results were dramatic.
At first the NVA had noteworthy success against the B-52 strikes, North Vietnam having the heaviest air defenses in the world (at the time). As the bomber offensive continued the U.S. continually changed tactics while the Vietnamese forces fired off virtually all their SAM inventory (which, thanks to the mining of Haiphong Harbor and the destruction of the Thanh Hoa bridge in the Spring of '72 were exceeding difficult for the NVA to replace). By the eighth day of the offensive, the North was almost defenseless, thanks to alterations in American tactics and the defeat of the NVA ADZ SAM systems.
From that point forward the attacks took on the nature of a boxing match without a Standing 8 count provision. By the 28th, when the plug was pulled something like 80% of the North's electrical generation was gone, along with around 85% of the country's manufacturing base. All that the U.S. left in place & undamaged was the Red River dike system. Any sustained attack on the dikes would have flooded around 3/4 of the agricultural land in the North. Even in the case of Linebacker II the dike system was judged to be too politically charged of a target.
There is little doubt that the U.S. could, at any time, have succeeded in this sort of bomber offensive. The question always was what good it would have done? IOTL the December bombings worked as desired, by encouraging Hanoi to return to serious bargining in Paris. If it could have "won the war", especially given the nature of the conflict, is far less certain.
edit
BTW: The idea that there would have been "Paris type" uprising in American cities is simply silly. The anti-war movement was remarkably peaceful and would have lost virtually ALL support had it changed nature. 200,000 people might have considered themselves "revolutionaries" but the truth is that the actual number of individuals willing to do violence is more like 1% of that total.
IIRC, my friends older brothers (and probably sisters) went to peace marches hoping to get laid, not to throw Molotov Cocktails.
Last edited:
What would be the point?
The historical experience of bombing civilians, is the more you bomb them, the more they rally around the regime.
You could try to weaken (not end) the NVA/VC war effort. Possible, but since the NVA/VC were already losing every stand-up battle in the South to the Americans anyway, what does it achieve in strategic terms?
You can't end the NVA/VC war effort, because the arms factories are in China, the USSR and Czechoslovakia and aren't going to bombed. Short of genocide like tactics, you can't deprive the NVA/VC of potential recruits.
Weakening their efforts doesn't achieve anything except make the attrition strategy more bearable to the US public. In the long run the US gets tired, and the VC/NCA don't, and we know what happens then.
The real reason that the Vietnam war leads to eventual US defeat is the regime in the South lacks legitimacy with the Vietnamese people. Bombing the North more heavily doesn't change that. A better US strategy would have been a political one - if you ever read about Ho Chi Minh (for example basing the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence on the US one), him being an Asian version of Tito, perhaps even more independent than Tito, doesn't seem that far fetched. Also think about it, the USSR has relatively little to offer North Vietnam other than guns, and China hasn't historically had good relations with Vietnam except during this period - so again, lots of room for political strategy.
The historical experience of bombing civilians, is the more you bomb them, the more they rally around the regime.
You could try to weaken (not end) the NVA/VC war effort. Possible, but since the NVA/VC were already losing every stand-up battle in the South to the Americans anyway, what does it achieve in strategic terms?
You can't end the NVA/VC war effort, because the arms factories are in China, the USSR and Czechoslovakia and aren't going to bombed. Short of genocide like tactics, you can't deprive the NVA/VC of potential recruits.
Weakening their efforts doesn't achieve anything except make the attrition strategy more bearable to the US public. In the long run the US gets tired, and the VC/NCA don't, and we know what happens then.
The real reason that the Vietnam war leads to eventual US defeat is the regime in the South lacks legitimacy with the Vietnamese people. Bombing the North more heavily doesn't change that. A better US strategy would have been a political one - if you ever read about Ho Chi Minh (for example basing the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence on the US one), him being an Asian version of Tito, perhaps even more independent than Tito, doesn't seem that far fetched. Also think about it, the USSR has relatively little to offer North Vietnam other than guns, and China hasn't historically had good relations with Vietnam except during this period - so again, lots of room for political strategy.
chronos
Banned
I was there at the time. Iit had become the No.1 issiue across the entire western world. Where are you getting yours from, the Vietnam war rewrite?
The bombing was simply going on elsewhere in SE. Asia.
As SunilTanna has explained populations don't react like that. The strategy of treating Ho Chi Minh as a Tito had been suggested by the OSS in 1945 but rejected.
LBJ had apparrantly thought he could have a swift victory - hence general Westmoreland's demands for 500,000 men and strategic bombing. Nixon knew this wasn't possible without a political settlement and his military activities were designed to force one. But as SunilTanna has also said the South Vietnam lacked legitimacy particularly after the unfortunate assassination of Diem for failing to be successful enough and so the North could essentially not agree to "recognise" the South, which is what the Americans wanted, as it would not have worked. The original search and destroy missions by troops in tne South had been intended to do the same thing.
The bombing was simply going on elsewhere in SE. Asia.
As SunilTanna has explained populations don't react like that. The strategy of treating Ho Chi Minh as a Tito had been suggested by the OSS in 1945 but rejected.
LBJ had apparrantly thought he could have a swift victory - hence general Westmoreland's demands for 500,000 men and strategic bombing. Nixon knew this wasn't possible without a political settlement and his military activities were designed to force one. But as SunilTanna has also said the South Vietnam lacked legitimacy particularly after the unfortunate assassination of Diem for failing to be successful enough and so the North could essentially not agree to "recognise" the South, which is what the Americans wanted, as it would not have worked. The original search and destroy missions by troops in tne South had been intended to do the same thing.
I'm fairly sure I agreed with you on the problems with the RVN government.
Unfortunately, the rest of your position is utterly undefendable from a factual basis. The U.S. DID NOT bomb North Viet Nam for nearly FOUR YEARS. When bombing temporarily resumed during Linebacker I Hanoi and areas within 20 miles of the city were off-limits.
The U.S. Peace movement was decidedly NOT the Weathermen, no matter how much they wanted it to be. It consisted of millions of people who just wanted the War to stop, not hundreds of thousands of revolutionaries. To state otherwise is foolish.
The War is still a highly emotional issue. Perhaps this is why your recollections are somewhat colored.
BTW:
I was there too. I was a bit younger than you apparently were, but I do remember the way that the peace movement worked (and I lived, no make that LIVE, in one of the most anti-war, perhaps the most anti-war, regions of the United States.
PaleHorseRiding
Banned
if there had of been un restricted bombing the war would have been over in 6 months with entire cities of North Vietnam in dust and the people dead
Napalming cities and Using phosphorous bombs would have ended any cities that existed in north Vietnam and killed the people waging the war the South would have ended up in charge of the North and would have been politically kept in line due to not wanting to go to war with china.
Napalming cities and Using phosphorous bombs would have ended any cities that existed in north Vietnam and killed the people waging the war the South would have ended up in charge of the North and would have been politically kept in line due to not wanting to go to war with china.
Unrestricted bombing probably could have won the war, by smashing cities and breaking dams that would destroy much of the agricultural land in North Vietnam.
It would also have killed hundreds of thousands directly and created a famine that would have killed millions more. If you think that the war was unpopular in the USA and even more unpopular abroad in OTL, that would have been mild compared to what would have happened here. The violent radicals were a small minority OTL, but would they still be if the USA was essentially committing genocide in North Vietnam?
It would also have killed hundreds of thousands directly and created a famine that would have killed millions more. If you think that the war was unpopular in the USA and even more unpopular abroad in OTL, that would have been mild compared to what would have happened here. The violent radicals were a small minority OTL, but would they still be if the USA was essentially committing genocide in North Vietnam?
From what I've read on the subject much of the opposition to the war within the US was triggered largely by the mounting casualties with no clear gains; if a strategic bombing offensive succeeds in shattering North Vietnam's infrastructure and allowing the US to more-or-less pacify the region I would assume that American casualties would be lower and an arguement could be made for the US managing clear gains.
As far as the rest of the world goes, there would no doubt be quite a bit of anger at such a bomber offensive, but if it succeeds the war will be over and done with quickly, rather than the US hemorhaging lives and legitimacy for more than a decade and a half as per OTL. A quick and successful war would not hurt the US as badly as the long, bloody, drawn out war that occured historically.
randomkeith
Banned
Unrestricted bombing doesn't work.
It was tried in the Great War to scare the British and it didn't work.
The Blitz was ment to crush the peoples spirit and again it didn't, infact you could say it united them.
The allied bombing of Germany didn't work either, the people still fought on despite Dresden and Hamburg.
Bombing Japan (with conventional bombs) didn't work despite the Tokyo firestorms.
Even the bombing of Laos and Cambodia didn't work
Unrestricted bombing just doesn't work, i think it just united the people and they really see what an ass hole you are and vow to continue to keep fighting you
It was tried in the Great War to scare the British and it didn't work.
The Blitz was ment to crush the peoples spirit and again it didn't, infact you could say it united them.
The allied bombing of Germany didn't work either, the people still fought on despite Dresden and Hamburg.
Bombing Japan (with conventional bombs) didn't work despite the Tokyo firestorms.
Even the bombing of Laos and Cambodia didn't work
Unrestricted bombing just doesn't work, i think it just united the people and they really see what an ass hole you are and vow to continue to keep fighting you
Deleted member 1487
In world war 2 there really wasn't the ability by the people to surrender. The leadership continued the war and essentially told the people what the other side was planning for them if they lost the war. The germans for instance were greatly aided in their propaganda efforts by the call for unconditional surrender and the details of the morgenthau plan being released. Also with a lock down on state apparatus, the leadership could maintain the war so long as the front held up. Strategic bombing does get results: Casualties and resources get used up by the recieving side. Tell me what the results would have been in Vietnam had we not bombed them at all. What about Germany and Japan in WW2? How much longer would they have resisted?
It stands that had we conducted the bombing offensive the way that we wanted, the war would have been won through essentially exterminating civilization on north Vietnam. The political ramifactions would have be horrific however. It would have been nearly the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
It stands that had we conducted the bombing offensive the way that we wanted, the war would have been won through essentially exterminating civilization on north Vietnam. The political ramifactions would have be horrific however. It would have been nearly the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Yeh, it would be over and done quickly all right. Strategic Atom wars last a few months, tops.
Fer Crissakes how many times do you guys have to be told? Brezhnev had laid out the limits that would bring about nuclear war very clearly and they were a good deal less than the genocide of an ally. It would have been an insane thing to do but the whole idea of maintaining a multibillion dollar arsenal so you can destroy the world if your enemy does so too is not the most rational strategy in humanity's repertoire anyway. Get it through your heads, Before 1989 = Different world
Well, not being an expert on the Soviet Union I could not say whether Brezhnev would actually be willing to fight a nuclear war over Vietnam, but I will admit to being a touch sceptical that the Soviet Union would lauch a war that would almost certainly end in their own destruction over such a peripheral interest as Vietnam. I could see them using the threat of doing so to try and force concessions from the US, and they would certainly use the American actions for propoganda (and would likely duplicate them in any wars they fought against 3rd world powers), but I don't see the Soviets going nuclear for Vietnam.
It's not rational to go to nuclear war for Vietnam.
But if a confrontation starts, then it does become rational not to back down when a lot of prestige as at stake.
Ever play Balance of Power?
If you don't defend any of your marginal interests, you gradually lose
If you do defend too many of your marginal interests, you can find a crisis going out of control and spiraling into war over some minor-issue
So you have to decide whether your marginal interest in an issue is more important than your opponent's on a case by case basis.
FWIW, yes it's only a game, but invading the other guy's allies' territory is not a good strategy, as it's the one case where it's clear from the start your choice is to back-down or have a war - because the other guy must defend his interest in these cases.
But if a confrontation starts, then it does become rational not to back down when a lot of prestige as at stake.
Ever play Balance of Power?
If you don't defend any of your marginal interests, you gradually lose
If you do defend too many of your marginal interests, you can find a crisis going out of control and spiraling into war over some minor-issue
So you have to decide whether your marginal interest in an issue is more important than your opponent's on a case by case basis.
FWIW, yes it's only a game, but invading the other guy's allies' territory is not a good strategy, as it's the one case where it's clear from the start your choice is to back-down or have a war - because the other guy must defend his interest in these cases.
PaleHorseRiding
Banned
the nukes would not have started flying the soviets gave up war in 1947 due to the effects of nuclear weapons
The Soviets would not have went to war if the Americans had of bombed hanoi and other North Vietnamese cities flat taken out dams they would not want to lose thier country to nuclear war against a country willing to do this in a war and just a proxy war at that.
Put the US in a war to the death and good bye soviets they knew this they also knew they could not win a war with the US and nuclear war neither side would win