Nuclear Nixon in 1967......A Study in Madness,,"How do Nuke 'em and get away with it !"
MIRVman
Defense commissioned a study to determine the feasibility and
advisability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons in that conflict.
A copy of that 1967 study, "Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast
Asia", was declassified in February 2003, and lays out in terrifying
detail what might have happened if the United States had used tactical
nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War.
The bottom line of the study is that the use of nuclear weapons in
Vietnam - to block the Ho Chi Minh trail, kill large numbers of enemy
soldiers, or destroy North Vietnamese air bases and seaports -
The study generally states that the use of these weapons would have
offered no decisive military advantages to the United States, but would
have had grave repercussions for US soldiers in the field and US
interests around the world.
We all talk about Tactical big bomb weaponry, however this disclosure
reinforces the possibility of Nuclear "Devices" being in place
during the conflict "IF" the order were given. This is where the
MIRVman comes in the picture.
The study was prepared by four physicists associated with the Jason
Division of the Institute of Defense Analyses, a group of scientists
who met frequently to provide classified advice to defense officials.
The study's conclusions were presented to then-Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara.
"The political effects of US first use of TNW (tactical nuclear
weapons) in Vietnam would be uniformly bad and could be
catastrophic," the scientists wrote. They warned that US first-use of
tactical nuclear weapons could lead China or the Soviet Union to
provide similar weapons to the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, raising the
possibility that US forces in Vietnam "would be essentially
annihilated" in retaliatory raids by nuclear-armed guerrilla forces.
If that happened, they wrote, "insurgent groups everywhere in the
world would take note and would try by all available means to acquire
TNW for themselves."
First-use of nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia, the scientists warned,
was 'likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear
guerrilla operations in other parts of the world,' including attacks on
the Panama Canal, oil pipelines and storage facilities in Venezuela and
the Israeli capital of Tel Aviv.
"US security would be gravely endangered if the use of TNW by
guerrilla forces should become widespread," they concluded.
The possibility of the enemy disseminating radioactive materials in an
ARVN occupied area, in an attempt to offer it's "Discovery" as
proof of US nuclear possession In Country, is an interesting
hypothetical synopsis, what if we masterminded the same scenario in
reverse? Would world attention then be directed in support of South
Vietnamese Independence ?
Thirty-nine years later some American officials are, according to press
reports, once again contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, and
seeking to repeal US authorization on the developments of smaller
nuclear weapons, including so-called 'low-yield' bombs and
deep-penetration 'bunker-busters.'
Writing in February 2003, Los Angel es Times, military analysts
disclosed the US Strategic Command in Omaha and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff were secretly drawing up nuclear target lists for Iraq. "Target
lists are being scrutinized, options are being pondered and procedures
are being tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new U.S.
doctrine of preemption, "they reported.
There have also been reports that tactical nuclear weapons,
particularly 'bunker busters,'
http://groups.google.com/group/Nuclear-Citizenry-in-Motion/browse_frm/thread/935da5fd8f34d1e2/#
have been considered by Pentagon planners in the context of the
escalating nuclear crisis with North Korea. Moreover, many US analysts
believe there is a great danger that North Korea, if its survival was
at stake, would be willing to sell its nuclear arsenal to the highest
bidder.
North Korea itself apparently believes the United States may be
planning nuclear strikes of its own, and on March 1, 2003 warned that a
war on the Korean peninsula would quickly 'escalate into a nuclear
war.'
I sincerely believe that any first use of nuclear weapons by the United
States can not and should not be sanctioned. As the Jason scientists
argued in the 1960s, US nuclear planning could serve as a pretext for
other countries and, worse, terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, to build
or acquire their own bombs. If we are not careful, our own nuclear
posture could provoke the very nuclear-proliferation activities we are
seeking to prevent.
This study, 'Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia', was released
February 17, 2003 by the Nautilus Institute of Berkeley, California,
and I would urge those with an interest in reading it in full to
contact them directly.
The conclusions of the Jason report are as valid, realistic and
frightening today as they were in 1967. As we contemplate the future
course of our nation's national security policy, I believe that it is
important to look at past events, to learn from them, and to benefit
from the counsel of history.