Nixon Proposed Using A-Bomb In Vietnam War - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1538784
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFD71331F932A35750C0A9649C8B63

Nixon Proposed Using A-Bomb In Vietnam War


Published: March 1, 2002

A few weeks before ordering an escalation of the Vietnam War, President Nixon matter-of-factly raised the idea of using a nuclear bomb. His national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, quickly dissuaded him.

Mr. Nixon's abrupt suggestion, buried in 500 hours of tapes released today at the National Archives, came after Mr. Kissinger had presented a variety of options for stepping up the war effort, among them attacking power plants and docks, in an April 25, 1972, conversation in the Executive Office Building in Washington.

''I'd rather use the nuclear bomb,'' Mr. Nixon responded.

''That, I think, would just be too much,'' Mr. Kissinger replied.

''The nuclear bomb. Does that bother you?'' Mr. Nixon asked. ''I just want you to think big.''

The following month, Mr. Nixon ordered the biggest escalation of the war since 1968.

In a 1985 interview, Mr. Nixon acknowledged that he had considered ''the nuclear option.'' He told Time magazine then: ''I rejected the bombing of the dikes, which would have drowned one million people, for the same reason that I rejected the nuclear option. Because the targets presented were not military targets.''


The best argument for American arms is that the US is responsible and has never used them . . . there is no reason, with this knowledge, to continue to espouse American arms. No reason.
By PBVBROOK
#1538822
he best argument for American arms is that the US is responsible and has never used them . . . there is no reason, with this knowledge, to continue to espouse American arms. No reason.


Give me a break. You are kvetching about nothing. Sleep well.
By Zyx
#1538825
PBVBROOK, if the U.S. does Nuke a nation then what? Do we continue to allow the U.S. to nuke nations that it invades unjustly or do we disarm it then?

Also, nice arbitrary word. Where'd you pick that one up from?
User avatar
By Nets
#1538845
Give me a break. You are kvetching about nothing. Sleep well.


Seconded.

This is nothing. So they bounced something around in the cabinet that was shot down. This means the system worked.
By Zyx
#1538850
Nets, it was shot down because the day after there was a huge protest that had no idea that the idea was being wrestled with.

That is to say, were it not for a 2 million person protest, Vietnam would have been nuked.

The NY Times may not have said that, but this was a sentiment spoken by one of Nixon's underlings. He said it for 'the sixties' documentary that I just watched.

Yes, this thread does read as though it was just something that was bounced around, but honestly it was a serious conclusion that would have become a reality were it not for the coincidental protest against the war the next day. I mean seriously, these protesters were very lucky.
By PBVBROOK
#1538851
PBVBROOK, if the U.S. does Nuke a nation then what? Do we continue to allow the U.S. to nuke nations that it invades unjustly or do we disarm it then?


Disarm the US? :eh:

Who would you propose do that? The borg? :borg:
By Zyx
#1538877
So, in effect, you have no issue with the U.S. nuking nations incessantly and arbitrarily so long as it can deceive enough Americans towards it being in their best interest?
User avatar
By Nets
#1538893
So, in effect, you have no issue with the U.S. nuking nations incessantly and arbitrarily....


We can discuss that when it happens.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1539027
Nets wrote:they bounced something around in the cabinet that was shot down. This means the system worked.

What system?

This was a discussion between two specific people. If it had been two different people, Vietnam might be witnessing even more miscarriages and jellyfish babies than it does now (thanks to the other chemicals the US dropped on those socialist farmers).

The US is no more responsible with its power than any other nation of people would be. And - as it has been made clear by American paranoia - NO NATION should have the ability to radiate an entire city in a few minutes. NO NATION OR ORGANISATION.

The reason the US doesn't want its adversaries (created by US imperialism) to have nukes is because the people in Washington realize that whoever owns them gets to play tyrant.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1539038
I know. They (we) covered it with experimental chemical weapons. All in order to make "Americans safe from the communist menace."

Meanwhile, 3 million civilian casualties later (with legs being blown off children for decades afterwards and birth defects galore), the US is now experimenting with DU and other weapons that we will learn about in a decade or so.
User avatar
By Rancid
#1539118
last i checked, Nixon wasn't president.

in fact he's pushing up flowers six feet under

in other words... FAIL
User avatar
By NYYS
#1539159
The best argument for American arms is that the US is responsible and has never used them . . . there is no reason, with this knowledge, to continue to espouse American arms. No reason.

That's idiotic. Like Nets said, it means the system worked. The MAD doctrine worked. We had the option of using the nuclear bomb but chose not to because of international retaliation.

This thread is actually the best argument for rational actors to have the nuclear bomb.
User avatar
By Lightman
#1539162
If I recall correctly, MacArthur wanted to nuke Korea and possibly China during the war. It didn't happen.
By Zyx
#1539223
NY Yankees suck., for some reason or another, the NY Times article is factually incorrect on many levels. I almost want to make another thread on how bad the NY Times is based on that article that downplays Nixon's suggestion considerably.

As to the reality, Nixon's suggestion would have fruitioned were it not for external protests that were ignorant of his intention and overall bombing schema at the time. It's horrifying.
By stalker
#1539235
What would have been bad about using nuclear weapons against Vietnam?
User avatar
By Rancid
#1539237
What would have been bad about using nuclear weapons against Vietnam?


i'd imagine people would be mad crazy pissed.

Over all, it would have made other counties (including the US) more likely to continue using nuclear weapons...

i guess
By Zyx
#1539241
The U.S. invaded Vietnam under the fear of a silly theory named after a game (Domino.) To have nuked the Vietnamese over theoretical garbage would be horrid simply for its precedence establishment.

It'd be like nuking Israel for its expansion policy or for being a Jew state with the fear that more Jew states will pop up. Or any other ideology for that matter . . .
User avatar
By Lightman
#1539282
NY Yankees suck., for some reason or another, the NY Times article is factually incorrect on many levels. I almost want to make another thread on how bad the NY Times is based on that article that downplays Nixon's suggestion considerably.

As to the reality, Nixon's suggestion would have fruitioned were it not for external protests that were ignorant of his intention and overall bombing schema at the time. It's horrifying.
Now what would make you privy to the internal movements of the Cabinet?
By Zyx
#1539289
I think that it was Kissinger who used these words, or some other person.

But one of Nixon's aides specified, on the documentary that I watched, that Nixon was dissuaded from using the Nuke by the protests that were going on as opposed to by the logic of Kissinger as the paper is supporting. In effect, government secrecy is so tremendous that some crap can happen and the people would be ineffective to stop it. It sucks.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]