Why weren't Nukes used in the Vietnam war?
99135
Ike was thinking about using them. There were plans drawn up to use special weapons.(plans are always made for these things and file away in case they are needed. Supposedly there were nukes in country, but there WERE nukes with the fleet,Navy never leaves home without them. A nuke army officer begged to go on patrol to see what it was like in the bush,(he wasnt suppose to go) and his unit was ambushed, the theory was the North Vietnamese wanted to capture him, to use as propaganda and to get nuke secrets.he just escaped capture and got into lots of hot water. You can dig all these facts out of the net if you hunt for them.
11239
Sites of conflict weren't limited to Cuba and Afghanistan--there were ideological conflicts throughout the world at the time. Many countries in South America, Asia, etc. Though the US and USSR didn't ever really have direct contact, the cold war was very real though many people at the time didn't want to recognize that it actually was a war. \n\nThe USSR was actively promoting Communism throughout the world to extend their reach. Luckily Reagan had the insight to know that just because they weren't attacking us--the spread of Communism would be just as good as if they were attacking us. Reagan countered the USSR's pursuits and won. I think the USSR would still exist today if Reagan hadn't actively countered them and given the US "peace through strength". Because he refused to play Russia's game, they were forced into trying to keep up with the US's military and nuclear buildup which eventually lead them to an economic crisis--forcing them to snap out of their ploys of world domination.
493783
You are absolutely correct.  In Vietnam we used to watch the unique smoke spirals from the charcoal fires the Vietcong would use to cook their breakfast at dawn.  We could tell by the number of spirals how many troops where in that particular geographic area and take the appropriate action.  Believe it or not, we could also tell by the amount of urine vapor that would float into the air at dawn how many enemy troops where also in that particular geographic area and take the appropriate action.  I can't say any more since it is still classified. You would be amazed at the level of technology that is in use today.
353792
Following the Cold War, I believe many Americans were afraid of nuclear threat. As a result, U.S. would sign the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which would conform the countires into a military alliance if any one of them were threatened.\n\nI don't know if this also includes the 'arms race,' in which U.S. would compete with the Soviets to build the H-Bomb (organzied in the secret Manhatten Project) while the Soviets were attempting to build their first Atomic Bomb.
512335
If the administration would have allowed unrestricted bombing of North Vietnam from the beginning of the war. I'd said 1 and 3. But seeing how Johnson wanted to approve every target, the best choice would be none of the above.The bombing was too little too late.
1128192
If Mcarthur had used atomic bombs on china it would have been a trajic mistake.Nukes should only be used as an endgame.Although we would have won Korea hands down.In 1945 nobody new the impact that it would make until It was dropped on Hiroshoma and Nagasaki.Although scientists had an idea even they were astonished at its raw power and devestation.The power that is harnessed today is 10 times more than in 1945.The bottom line is that it can and does effect the way we live.The earth is our home and the birthplace of mankind, until someone shows me different.Would you destroy your home or infect it with gauranteed death?I don't think so or you wouldn't be asking this question.I don't beleive we needed it in 45 but what is done is done and can't be undone.Also there was a marked difference between then and.The US was attacked on our own soil.We are still the sleeping giant so nations that advocate the use of Nukes in war should be aware that we have and will use them.In this day we can't afford another PEARL HARBOR.The world has changed and we won't be caught sleeping again.9/11 doesn't enter into the equation.
585817
Basically to take Europe out of the equation in case of Nuclear war.\n\nReally though the Soviet Union was in such deep financial chaos that they could no longer afford the development and upkeep of targeting nukes on Europe.  \n\nSo taking them off the table was mostly a financial decision.\n\nI should add that there was also a growing emphasis on Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.  They were easier to hide and defend.
444679
With the rise in power of countries these days, we are lucky all we need to develope are bunker busting weapons.  Many countries have developed nuclear technology since the end of the "cold" war.  I'd be more concerned with the Iranians and North Koreans obtaining nuclear weapons than with the U.S. developing a weapon that could take out nuclear weapons in their silo's.
1123867
we've gone to war with countries that were backed by nuclear countries, but never directly with a nuclear power.  we can't and won't ever do it because of a doctrine called MAD - mutually assured destruction.
757818
They did use it During Vietnam.
954009
Nuclear bombs would be used. But it is recognised that there is a ceiling to the number of bombs that would destroy the Earth utterly. Countries involved would limit strikes to below this number as part of the new nuclear war doctrine. China and the US have vast territories so some civilians and military would survive- China has less than 500 warheads, while the US only has a few thousand ready for use.\n\nIf World War III kicks off the theatre will be global and incalculably vast- there would be low level skirmishes all over the place. Hence infantry would be used and see action all over the globe- they have an ability to avoid destruction tanks and planes cannot.\n\nThe world would instantly become a more violent place- so other wars of a conventional kind would erupt, and the US would intervene where strategically helpful.
58312
At that time, Nuclear usage for war is still not forbidden to use. In fact, Japan was the first real-battle-field test for atomic bomb (nuke). Even the scientist that make the nuke didn't know how devastating the nuke is. I think they regret it quite a bit to use nuke at that time (but there was no other choice to end WW2 ASAP).\nUSA drop the nuke with good intention (ending the WW2 and prevent more casualities) and Iran... I don't know.\nAnd Iran has the nuke now. So it's a whole different story.
489089
Its basically a deterrant to keep other nations from using them.  So say for example, Iran nukes Israel, then the other club members would be required to obliterate all of Iran as punishment.  Even in the afghanistan mountains, the US only used conventional bombs and not nukes.
553881
It was the Vietnam War.  Millions of gallons were used.  A whole lot.  Look it up on Wikipedia or do a google search.
545063
I do think the CIA had some involvement, as well as perhaps some military higher-ups. There were people who wanted us in Vietnam because of financial rewards, contracts, etc. Kennedy was against us being over there. Our involvement in Vietnam really only blossomed after JFK's death.
354602
For the simple reason that there weren't any WMD there.\n\nNow how can you be sure:\n\n1. If they had any they would've been used when US was attacking Iraq.\n2. If they were not used for fear of retaliation, then they should've been found by now.\n\nThe probability of all the WMDs being scuttled for fear of UN inspectors finding them out is very real.
393825
Because the nuclear powers got together decades ago and made a series of agreements prohibiting the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations, in an effort to prevent it from getting out of hand.  By preventing nukes from spreading willy-nilly around the world, and controlling the nuclear capable powers, it limited the number of nations that had to be convinced to destroy the nukes and remove the threat.\n\nOf course, the fallacy with that theory is that, "once the genie is out of the bottle, it is really tough to get it back in."  In other words, now that we know how to make nuclear weapons, we can't make that knowledge just vanish by destroying the nukes that currently exist, which is why there are still nuclear capable nations in the world.\n\nIran is one of many non-nuclear powers that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), stating for all to see that they would never, ever try to become nuclear capable, either by buying them from other countries or making them for themselves.\n\nNow they've been caught preparing to make fission weapons (there's no need to enrich uranium other than to make bombs -- don't let anyone fool you into believing that they need enriched uranium for power reactors -- that's just BS)) and are threatening to withdraw from the NPT so they can build bombs that they can use then on Israel and anyone who threatens them in any way.  Oh, and they can then sell them to Islamic extremists/terrorists to use on whomever they decide to hate that day (like the U.S.).\n\nDoesn't that just make your day?