
Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia (1954) [pdf] - Tomte
http://nautilus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/tactical_nukes_vietnam.pdf
======
bigjimmyk3
The headline says 1954, but that is a misreading of the cover page. The report
appears to have been authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 but its
publication date is listed on the cover page is 1967.

~~~
friendstock
Yes, the report refers to the (US) Vietnam War and the Rolling Thunder
campaign, which took place in the 1960s. Can the OP change the title to refer
to 1967?

------
CamperBob2
Interesting document. TL,DR: even dozens or hundreds of nuclear weapons used
on a recurring basis are not a guaranteed way, or even an especially effective
way, to counter guerillas operating on their home turf. US forces concentrated
in 14 individual bases would have been far more vulnerable to use of Soviet-
or Chinese-sponsored nuclear weapons than the enemy troops would have been to
our own.

Additionally, the successful use of tactical nukes against US troops would
have encouraged both third-world countries and insurgent forces all over the
world to ally themselves with the Communists to obtain weapons of their own,
which was literally the opposite of what we were supposedly trying to
accomplish in Viet Nam.

The conclusion, as usual, is that the only way to win this particular game is
not to play it.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"the successful use of tactical nukes against US troops would have encouraged
both third-world countries and insurgent forces all over the world to ally
themselves with the Communists to obtain weapons of their own,"

Such countries are well aware that these weapons exist, and that the Russians
can field them anyhow.

The more likely response against anyone, at any time using nukes of any size
against the US is that they 'wake the dragon' in a way bigger than Pearl
Harbour. Remember the 'fear' of nukes is quite substantial, even if tactical
nukes are a small deal, the concern is big. It would have been 9/11 x 10.

And the world would be different today probably.

------
godelmachine
It’s mentioned that India’s nuclear program has the capability of producing
500 bombs in the next 10 years.

Was the US already aware of India’s nuclear capability?

~~~
muststopmyths
They say the civilian nuclear power program would produce materials that could
be used to make up to 500 bombs. That's a known risk of "civilian" programs,
which is why Israel bombed Iraq's reactor and has threatened to do the same to
Iran.

In any case, the bomb project was also probably riddled with CIA and KGB
agents (at least that used to be the rumor back in the day).

~~~
godelmachine
>> _the bomb project was also probably riddled with CIA and KGB agents_

You mean to say India’s bomb project was riddled with CIA and KGB agents?

~~~
sandworm101
Every bomb program is targeted by every intel agency. A few always get
through. It isnt always a bad thing. Mutual knowledge is a cornerstone of
deterance.

~~~
godelmachine
I was about to pitch Operation Shakti
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-
II](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokhran-II) as the one that got through.

------
mturmon
Looks like Freeman Dyson was a co author. Interesting document — it challenges
the notion (which is not realistic, but is still believed) that if the US had
just been more ruthless, it could have bombed the North Vietnamese
sufficiently to “win” the war.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Just imagine how the world would have reacted if the USSR had used tac nukes
in Afghanistan to "win" its war there.

