Vietnam War what if?

[Rickshaw]

One of the biggest weakness of the post war free world was the stubborn viewpoint that there was no such thing as a good Communist, even in a transition system.

225386[/snapback]

 

 

Its interesting how the US (and by extension the West) could be quite friendly with Tito in Jugoslavia, to the point of supplying him with military equipment under MAP, yet at virtually the same time, in Vietnam, it refused absolutly to have any dealings with Ho Chi Minh. One of the more interesting contradictions of the Cold War.

[Rickshaw]

...Which would also include the 2 other fronts opening up as a result... the Soviet invasion of Western Europe and the radioactive front as both sides would exchange nuclear weapons, right...?

226091[/snapback]

 

Would the Soviets have risked nuclear war either by invading Western Europe or directly attacking the US with missiles?

 

I suspect not. Afterall, they didn't do so during the Korean War and they were by all accounts far more directly involved in the planning and control of that war, than they were in the Vietnamese one. I seem to remember reading a comment from the Soviet Ambassador to Hanoi who wrote in his memoires of how, in his opinion, shabbily the Politburo in Hanoi treated him, making him cool his heels in the corridor while they discussed policies and strategies whereupon he'd then be called in and be informed of their decisions and what their shopping list was.

 

Somehow, post Cold War I get the feeling that the West failed too often to see the cracks in Communism and instead saw a false front of unity. America and its allies believe they were fighting the USSR in Vietnam (or for Australia at least, they believed they were fighting the PRC), when in reality all they were fighting were the Vietnamese.

 

The Vietnamese were helped by other Communist powers but to a lesser extent than the south was by the US as I understand it. Apparently even then, the ideological struggles between the USSR and the PRC in the 1960s often boiled over and made Mao delay supplies bound for Hanoi as punishment for Hanoi's closeness to Moscow.

 

Somehow I doubt that the Russians would have risked nuclear obliteration for the Vietnamese. They weren't willing to for the Cubans, afterall.

Edited September 23, 2005 by Baron Samedi

[pi]

Somehow, post Cold War I get the feeling that the West failed too often to see the cracks in Communism and instead saw a false front of unity. America and its allies believe they were fighting the USSR in Vietnam (or for Australia at least, they believed they were fighting the PRC), when in reality all they were fighting were the Vietnamese. 

226195[/snapback]

 

Kissinger has said much the same in his memoirs.

[gewing]

Here is a bit of "arm chair soldiering" that i did after my first tour there.

 

HCM Trail (requires violation of Laos "neutrality" in 1966-67).

 

1.  Keep SOF/LRRP surveillance of the HCM trail through Laos.

 

2.  Periodically insert a brigade-sized airmobile force onto the trail to set up defenses and aggressively patrol.

 

3.  After the NVA laboriously assemble by foot marches (while being pounded by the air farce) enough force to threaten the air-mobile brigade, you pull it out (via helicopter) and insert another brigade two hundred miles up or down the trail.

 

4.  You drive them ragged  running up and down the trail with enough force to eliminate the roadblocks.

 

DMZ:

 

1.  Switch a goodly chunk of the massive engineer construction oplant from building base camps to construction of a huge paved road along the DMZ with wide open swaths of right-of-way.

 

2.  Agressively patrol this road with an ACR or a Mmech Brigade.

Just tossing out some REMF thoughts....

225893[/snapback]

 

 

way back when a friend suggested building a kilometer wide parking lot all the way around the border as a cheaper solution thatn the way the war went.

[Chris Werb]

Install a huge number of very large H bombs at your bases all around the world and pack them with substances that form long lived isotopes (cadmium, strontium etc.). Set them off simultaneously, without warning.

 

Not only should this defeat Vietnamese communism, but prevent any other outbreaks of communism or, worse still, liberalism, anywhere on the planet.

[Guest Murph]

Intall LTC Vann as the Grand High Poobah in Vietnam, let the Marines run the ground pacification war, and let the Army whack on NV. Then assasinate McNamara, Ellsworth Bunker, and most of McNamara's "Whiz kids".

[tankerwanabe]

Would the Soviets have risked nuclear war either by invading Western Europe or directly attacking the US with missiles?

 

I suspect not.  Afterall, they didn't do so during the Korean War and they were by all accounts far more directly involved in the planning and control of that war, than they were in the Vietnamese one. I seem to remember reading a comment from the Soviet Ambassador to Hanoi who wrote in his memoires of how, in his opinion, shabbily the Politburo in Hanoi treated him, making him cool his heels in the corridor while they discussed policies and strategies whereupon he'd then be called in and be informed of their decisions and what their shopping list was.

 

Somehow, post Cold War I get the feeling that the West failed too often to see the cracks in Communism and instead saw a false front of unity. America and its allies believe they were fighting the USSR in Vietnam (or for Australia at least, they believed they were fighting the PRC), when in reality all they were fighting were the Vietnamese. 

 

The Vietnamese were helped by other Communist powers but to a lesser extent than the south was by the US as I understand it. Apparently even then, the ideological struggles between the USSR and the PRC in the 1960s often boiled over and made Mao delay supplies bound for Hanoi as punishment for Hanoi's closeness to Moscow.

 

Somehow I doubt that the Russians would have risked nuclear obliteration for the Vietnamese.  They weren't willing to for the Cubans, afterall.

226195[/snapback]

 

I also doubt USSR intervention. However, I believe that the PRC would.

 

Disregarding the fact that the Chinese view the Vietnamese as their own people (highly disputed by the Vietnamese of course), China has a history of reaching outward when it is threatenned. This was most recently evidenced by their Korean intervention.

 

I've not seen any documents to support my theory, but it must have been heavily discussed in Washington post-linebacker when South Vietnamese officials begged Washington to invade the North.

 

How could one handle PRC intervention into Vietnam short of Nukes?

Edited September 23, 2005 by tankerwanabe

[p620346]

"This argues for a conventional invasion and a no-kidding bombing campaign (not the Rolling Thunder game of patty cake) of the SRVN. Of course then we get back to the Korean War dilemna of achieving victory in the theater at the cost of igniting a direct war with the USSR or China."

 

The US could always try to make an alliance with the USSR against China, I gather that there were plenty of Soviet generals itching for a war against the PRC. Alternately, the US could make a deal with the PRC to "give" them North Vietnam" if they will keep it from attacking South Vietnam

[Burncycle360]

First, strap an airburst fuse and ballute to a Davy Crockett.

 

Then, see how many can be stuffed inside a B-52.

 

Start with linebacker, add a little rolling thunder, shake not stir...

 

Rinse and repeat! It may not change the course of the war, but it would be impressive!

[Rick]

The following two questions are asked due to my lack of knowledge. Why did the U.S. not invade North Vietnam? Would such an invasion have won the war? Thank you and pardon me if this has been asked before.

[Richard Lindquist]

Its interesting how the US (and by extension the West) could be quite friendly with Tito in Jugoslavia, to the point of supplying him with military equipment under MAP, yet at virtually the same time, in Vietnam, it refused absolutly to have any dealings with Ho Chi Minh.  One of the more interesting contradictions of the Cold War.

226186[/snapback]

 

Because Tito had openly broken with the Soviets and we helped him on the basis that the "enemy of our enemy is our friend". Ho Chi Minh was considered to be a client opf the Chicoms (based on 1950-1954. If Ho had broken with the Chicoms (or if the USSR had fallen in 1959 instead of 1989, Vietnam would not have occurred. Plus the US presence in the area emboldened the resistance to Sukarno in Indonesia and led to his downfall.

[Richard Lindquist]

The following two questions are asked due to my lack of knowledge. Why did the U.S. not invade North Vietnam? Would such an invasion have won the war? Thank you and pardon me if this has been asked before.

226555[/snapback]

 

Same reason they didn't invade Cambodia till 1970 and Laos till 1971. The Johnson administration did not want to "escalate" the war. Throughout the war, the fiction was maintained that we were fighting one of Nikita Khruschev's "Wars of National Liberation".

[Paul F Jungnitsch]

The following two questions are asked due to my lack of knowledge. Why did the U.S. not invade North Vietnam? Would such an invasion have won the war? Thank you and pardon me if this has been asked before.

226555[/snapback]

 

Imagine the U.S. reaction to the Chinese invading Mexico to install a communist government there.

 

The Chinese don't like the Vietnamese, never did, but were understandably sensitive about an unfriendly foreign superpower invading to their border. And their reaction in Korea underscored that in real terms.

[gewing]

First, strap an airburst fuse and ballute to a Davy Crockett.

 

Then, see how many can be stuffed inside a B-52.

 

Start with linebacker, add a little rolling thunder, shake not stir...

 

Rinse and repeat! It may not change the course of the war, but it would be impressive!

226520[/snapback]

 

 

saturation nuclear bombardment!

 

wow Traveller lives!

 

 

maybe the discussedmicro nukes using the rare isotopes... talk about gunship attacks!

 

40mm autocannons with payload like 2000lbs (I forget the actual estimates) of TNT?

[DougRichards]

way back when a friend suggested building a kilometer wide parking lot all the way around the border as a cheaper solution thatn the way the war went.

226216[/snapback]

 

This idea was tried by the French with Algeria, to try to keep Algeria as part of metropolitan France.

 

Algeria is an independent country now, and has been for a while.

 

The division of North and South Vietnam was an arbitary one, that the vast majority of the population of both sides of the border would have preferred to see reversed and one Vietnam formed. This of course has happened, and should have been allowed to happen 30 years before it did.

[gewing]

This idea was tried by the French with Algeria, to try to keep Algeria as part of metropolitan France.

 

Algeria is an independent country now, and has been for a while.

 

The division of North and South Vietnam was an arbitary one, that the vast majority of the population of both sides of the border would have preferred to see reversed and one Vietnam formed.  This of course has happened, and should have been allowed to happen 30 years before it did.

226687[/snapback]

 

 

 

just too damned bad a bunch of people had to be killed or re-educated in the process, Huh?

[larrikin]

This idea was tried by the French with Algeria, to try to keep Algeria as part of metropolitan France.

 

Algeria is an independent country now, and has been for a while.

 

 

226687[/snapback]

 

Yep, and many, if not most Algerians, now believe they got it wrong, and that Algeria would have been better off, much better off, as a part of metropolitan France.

[Rickshaw]

Because Tito had openly broken with the Soviets and we helped him on the basis that the "enemy of our enemy is our friend".  Ho Chi Minh was considered to be a client opf the Chicoms (based on 1950-1954.

 

The keyword here is "considered" I feel. It owed more to perceptions than necessarily reality. Considering how the Chinese had done the dirty on the Vietnamese at the 1954 Peace Conference, its interesting to consider what could have happened if the US had taken advantage of that and wowed Ho away from the Communist bloc'. The problem was, the US believed incorrectly that Hanoi was merely a puppet of Beijing, when in reality it was an ally in a troubled alliance as later events were to prove.

 

If Ho had broken with the Chicoms (or if the USSR had fallen in 1959 instead of 1989, Vietnam would not have occurred.  Plus the US presence in the area emboldened the resistance to Sukarno in Indonesia and led to his downfall.

226559[/snapback]

 

Ah, yes, the coup and counter-coup of Suharto. Not a terribly well handled intervention by the CIA, from the perspective of the Indonesians.

[Rickshaw]

I also doubt USSR intervention.  However,  I believe that the PRC would. 

 

Change that to might and I'd agree with you. The PRC faced considerable difficulties throughout the 1960s - first the Great Leap Forward and its associated famine and then the Cultural Revolution as Mao attempted to retain control of the Politburo. When coupled with the economic problems both caused and the split with the USSR and the Chinese capabilities are somewhat questionable. As we saw 10 years later, the PLA was only a hollow shell of what it had been in Korea.

 

Disregarding the fact that the Chinese view the Vietnamese as their own people (highly disputed by the Vietnamese of course), China has a history of reaching outward when it is threatenned.  This was most recently evidenced by their Korean intervention.

Agreed. China has always liked to control its borders and that desire has reached way back into imperial times as well.

 

I've not seen any documents to support my theory, but it must have been heavily discussed in Washington post-linebacker when South Vietnamese officials begged Washington to invade the North.

 

How could one handle PRC intervention into Vietnam short of Nukes?

226477[/snapback]

 

Well, first off the PRC actually has to create such an intervention. I understand they had great difficulty even maintaining the 10,000 or so railway troops and AA gunners that they did in North Vietnam. The actual avenues into northern Vietnam from southern China would have been easily controlled by the USAF/USN. Heavy equipment couldn't have gotten through, except with difficulty. Infantry though, would have been unstoppable. However I don't think after their experiences in Korea the PLA's generals were under any illusion of what would happened if they attacked sans artillery or any other heavy equipment.

[tankerwanabe]

Well, first off the PRC actually has to create such an intervention.  I understand they had great difficulty even maintaining the 10,000 or so railway troops and AA gunners that they did in North Vietnam. The actual avenues into northern Vietnam from southern China would have been easily controlled by the USAF/USN.  Heavy equipment couldn't have gotten through, except with difficulty.  Infantry though, would have been unstoppable.  However I don't think after their experiences in Korea the PLA's generals were under any illusion of what would happened if they attacked sans artillery or any other heavy equipment.

226730[/snapback]

 

In 1978 the PRC invaded Vietnam in retaliation for Vietnam's incursion into Cambodia. The PRC took 62,000 casaulties and lost 280 tanks in a very short amount of time. This shows the "greeness" of the PRC army.

 

The geography of Southern China is considerably flat. This would make it terrible for troop movement facing B-52 saturation bombings.

 

So the potency of PRC intervention was perhaps more imaginary than real. However, one still has to contend with the sheer weight of the PRC army.

 

Had the US needed to invade, we would probably have to insert several divisions into blocking positions before the PRC get to the mountains surrounding Hanoi.

 

I am unfamiliar with the PRC's air defense. What do you know about their capabilities at the time?

[Richard Lindquist]

Change that to might and I'd agree with you.  The PRC faced considerable difficulties throughout the 1960s - first the Great Leap Forward and its associated famine and then the Cultural Revolution as Mao attempted to retain control of the Politburo.  When coupled with the economic problems both caused and the split with the USSR and the Chinese capabilities are somewhat questionable. As we saw 10 years later, the PLA was only a hollow shell of what it had been in Korea.

226730[/snapback]

 

Agreed, but the Chicom intervention in Korea was an event which made a deep impression on both the US military and the foreign policy pukes. No one wanted to face the "godless hordes" on the mainland of Asia. Also, the Kennedy administration and the Kennedy holdovers in the Johnson administration were following the Maxwell Taylor doctrine of "measured response" to one of Khruschev's "Wars of national Liberation" and wanted to localize the war. It was only in the Nixon adminsitration (with the political neutralization of the PRC) that the US moved into the sanctuaries of Cambodia (1970) and Laos (1971).

[LeoTanker]

Screw all this bandaid shit.  Massive full commitment attack on the USSR as soon as possible.  Ya'll are worried about symptoms , not the disease.  S/F....Ken M

225332[/snapback]

 

 

Why? Because they have different political system? Because they are Slaves? Would you really advocate a nuclear man slaughter that would make Hitler look like a democrate?

 

I think Paul F Juggernit have come upp with some really inteligent posts in this thread, and I bet this world would bee a mouch nicer place if countries wouldn´t bee so keen on attacking eachother. But unfortunately this will most likely newer happend...

[LeoTanker]

Yep, and many, if not most Algerians, now believe they got it wrong, and that Algeria would have been better off, much better off, as a part of metropolitan France.

226718[/snapback]

 

 

Actually the Comore Island (soth east Africa) has officially declared that they want France to "take their responsability" and come back an re-colionize them, since everything has been screwd upp after their independence...

[Rickshaw]

I am unfamiliar with the PRC's air defense. What do you know about their capabilities at the time?

226823[/snapback]

 

Unsure myself but they were quite successful at shooting down both drone and manned reconniassance aircraft that were flown over their airspace throughout the Vietnam War. At a guess, I'd put them about 5 years behind the North Vietnamese - a greater reliance on AAA than necessarily SAMs. The SR-71 was the one they didn't catch an example of. They had lots of propagand shots of Firefly drones and RB-57s remains being shown in Beijing during the period which were published in various publications.

Edited September 26, 2005 by Baron Samedi

[swerve]

Actually the Comore Island (soth east Africa) has officially declared that they want France to "take their responsability" and come back an re-colionize them, since everything has been screwd upp after their independence... 

 

And I'd bet my house that most of the people of Cabo Verde regret independence from Portugal. Just think, those islands could now be the most heavily subsidised corner of the EU, with regional deelopment aid having provided them with all the infrastructure needed for a million tourists a year, & locals agitating for more coastguard patrols to keep out the illegal immigrants.