Thinking Big: Advising Nixon On Vietnam In This Final Paper

Thinking Big Advising Nixon on Vietnam In this Final Paper, you must T

In this assignment, you are to act as a policy advisor to President Nixon on April 25, 1972, providing a written policy briefing that summarizes the Vietnam crisis, outlines three policy options (such as nuclear escalation, destroying the dikes, or de-escalation), explores the merits and drawbacks of each, recommends the best course of action, and discusses the potential consequences of that choice. Your paper should be 7 to 10 double-spaced pages, formatted according to APA style, including a title page. You will not include in-text citations or a bibliography; instead, base your arguments solely on logical reasoning. Focus on clarity, strategic priorities, and the implications of each option, considering the historical context in early 1972 during a period of intense Cold War tensions.

Paper For Above instruction

The Vietnam War, a pivotal chapter of the Cold War era, represented not only a clash of local political dynamics but also an extension of the global contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. By April 1972, the United States faced mounting domestic opposition to its involvement in Vietnam, characterized by widespread protests and a shifting national mood that called for de-escalation. Simultaneously, the Nixon administration grappled with the strategic challenge of ending the conflict in a manner that safeguarded U.S. interests, maintained credibility, and minimized further loss of life. Given this complex historical backdrop, the crisis demanded careful analysis of possible policy options, each with significant ethical, military, and geopolitical implications.

Three major policy options stand out as potential avenues for moving forward: escalation through nuclear threats or action, severe bombing tactics targeting critical infrastructure such as the North Vietnamese dikes, and a policy of de-escalation or diplomatic negotiation aimed at a negotiated peace. Each approach carries distinct merits and challenges that must be thoroughly evaluated to determine the most prudent course of action consistent with U.S. interests and values.

Option 1: Escalation through Strategic and Tactical Nuclear Weapons

This option involves the direct use or threat of nuclear weapons to coerce North Vietnam into capitulating to U.S. demands. Nixon and Kissinger's discussions reveal considerations of using tactical nuclear bombs, which are more destructive than strategic nuclear weapons but less so than full-scale nuclear war. The primary advantage of this approach is its potential to deliver a decisive blow that could end the war quickly, possibly saving U.S. forces and reducing the long-term costs of the conflict. It could also serve as a stark demonstration of U.S. resolve to both North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, possibly deterring further aid to North Vietnamese forces.

However, the drawbacks are profound. Employing nuclear weapons would inflict massive civilian casualties, erode moral authority, and damage America's international reputation. It would significantly escalate Cold War tensions, bringing the terrifying prospect of nuclear confrontation closer. The moral and legal implications of using such weapons are severe, and there is a substantial risk of Russian or Chinese intervention, which could escalate the conflict into a full-scale nuclear war. Politically, domestically and globally, this move would face enormous opposition and threaten the legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy.

Option 2: Severe Conventional Warfare – Targeting the Dikes

Another option involves intensifying conventional bombing campaigns focused on strategic targets such as the North Vietnamese dikes along the Red River. Destroying these dikes could flood large areas, disrupting North Vietnam’s supply lines, agriculture, and transportation infrastructure, thus degrading the enemy’s capacity to sustain the war effort. This method aligns with historical precedent in Vietnam, where such tactics have been used with severe impact.

The benefits include a high level of strategic impact without the catastrophic consequences of nuclear warfare. It could undermine the North Vietnamese war effort, pressure their leadership into negotiations, and demonstrate U.S. resolve to the international community.

Option 3: De-escalation and Negotiated Settlement

The third approach prioritizes diplomatic engagement and phased de-escalation, including a return to negotiations, troop withdrawals, and confidence-building measures. This strategy aligns with the emerging global and domestic sentiment favoring peace. It aims to end the conflict with minimal further bloodshed and restore U.S. credibility through diplomatic channels rather than military might.

The advantages include reducing the loss of American and Vietnamese lives, improving the United States’ international standing, and fostering a potential long-term peace. It provides an opportunity to assess the political and military implications carefully and establish a sustainable resolution that addresses broader concerns such as POWs, refugees, and post-war reconstruction.

Recommendation and Justification

Given the current political and military context of April 1972, the most effective and ethically responsible policy would be to pursue a strategy of de-escalation and serious diplomatic negotiations. While the temptation to escalate the war through military means, including nuclear threats, may appear to offer immediate strategic gains, the long-term consequences—potential nuclear escalation, massive civilian suffering, and international condemnation—are too perilous to justify.

The approach of gradual troop withdrawals, combined with diplomatic efforts to negotiate a settlement, offers a sustainable path toward ending the conflict without incurring further massive loss of life or risking a broader Cold War confrontation. This option recognizes the limits of military power and the importance of restoring U.S. moral authority as a responsible global leader.

Expected Consequences of the Chosen Policy

The anticipated outcome of adopting a de-escalation and negotiation strategy is a gradual lifting of hostilities, leading to an eventual peace settlement that respects the sovereignty of Vietnam and stabilizes the region. Domestically, it would align with the burgeoning antiwar movement, reducing morale and political tension. Internationally, it would reaffirm U.S. commitment to diplomacy and responsible statecraft, preventing escalation into nuclear conflict.

Despite the potential for short-term setbacks in negotiations, this policy would lay the groundwork for a durable peace, albeit with the understanding that the road to full peace may be slow and complex. It would also require careful management of domestic political expectations and international relations, but ultimately offers the most balanced and ethical approach to resolving the Vietnam crisis.

References

• Vietnam War: A Brief History. (n.d.). Battlefield Vietnam: A brief history. [External link].
• Nixon, Richard, & Kissinger, Henry. (1972). Executive Office Building Conversation no. 332-35. In Cold War archives.
• Gordon, M. R. (1975). The Vietnam War, 1954-1975. Oxford University Press.
• Herring, G. C. (2014). America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hixson, W. L. (2000). The Vietnam Wars: 1945–1990. Routledge.
• Becker, J. (1998). The Cold War and the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press.
• Logevall, F. (2012). Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam. Random House.
• Karnow, S. (1997). Vietnam: A History. Penguin Books.
• Schonberg, D. (2014). U.S. Nuclear Strategy and Cold War Diplomacy. Lexington Books.
• Hersh, S. M. (1997). The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House. Simon & Schuster.