Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War (Modern War Studies) Hardcover – June 5, 2015
| Price | New from | Used from |
- Kindle
$37.99 Read with Our Free App - Hardcover
$47.66Other new and used from $47.66
Purchase options and add-ons
Beyond the mining of North Vietnamese ports and selective bombing in and around Hanoi, the initial DUCK HOOK concept included proposals for "tactical" nuclear strikes against logistics targets and U.S. and South Vietnamese ground incursions into the North. In early October 1969, however, Nixon aborted planning for the long-contemplated operation. He had been influenced by Hanoi's defiance in the face of his dire threats and concerned about U.S. public reaction, antiwar protests, and internal administration dissent.
In place of DUCK HOOK, Nixon and Kissinger launched a secret global nuclear alert in hopes that it would lend credibility to their prior warnings and perhaps even persuade Moscow to put pressure on Hanoi. It was to be a "special reminder" of how far President Nixon might go. The risky gambit failed to move the Soviets, but it marked a turning point in the administration's strategy for exiting Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger became increasingly resigned to a "long-route" policy of providing Saigon with a "decent chance" of survival for a "decent interval" after a negotiated settlement and U.S. forces left Indochina.
Burr and Kimball draw upon extensive research in participant interviews and declassified documents to unravel this intricate story of the October 1969 nuclear alert. They place it in the context of nuclear threat making and coercive diplomacy since 1945, the culture of the Bomb, intra-governmental dissent, domestic political pressures, the international "nuclear taboo," and Vietnamese and Soviet actions and policies. It is a history that holds important lessons for the present and future about the risks and uncertainties of nuclear threat making.
- Print length448 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherUniversity Press of Kansas
- Publication dateJune 5, 2015
- Dimensions6.5 x 1.5 x 9.25 inches
- ISBN-100700620826
- ISBN-13978-0700620821
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
"This book is an indispensable source for studying the international diplomacy of the Vietnam War. Its richness ensures that readers will emerge from its pages with differing judgments and assessments of Nixon's coercive diplomacy."--Journal of American History
"William Burr and Jeffrey Kimball deserve praise for their discerning and cogent reconstruction of the motives and actions of the Nixon Administration to its first year. Students interested in the Vietnam War or the Cold War more generally will learn a great deal from Nixon's Nuclear Specter."--Michigan War Studies Review
"Nixon's Nuclear Specter is a detailed and careful account of Nixon's and Kissinger's fruitless efforts during 1969 to find an "honorable" way out of Vietnam. As events that year unfolded, these authors demonstrate, honor had little to do with it."--New York Review of Books
"What the authors reveal is the intense, behind-the-scenes plotting and planning that Nixon and Kissinger carried on in 1969 as they desperately tried to find a way to move the Vietnam War talks with Hanoi to fruition."VVA Veteran
"An important contribution to the [Cold War] literature."--Choice
"Well written and thoroughly researched, Nixon's Nuclear Specter is a rich study of scholars of the era, and essential for those interested in Vietnam, the Nixon era, and the mindset of our 37th president. With the release of additional Nixon White House records and tapes we can only hope that the authors continue writing, jointly, or separately, for many more years."--H-Net Reviews
"There will be no better book-length case study on coercive nuclear diplomacy than the one just written by William burr and Jeffrey P. Kimball."--Arms Control Today
"Finally, a well-researched and well-written account of our leaders' dangerous nuclear brinksmanship across the high years of the Cold War. There's much here that's new and much that's troubling--for today as well as yesterday."--Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer-Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb
"I didn't know any of this as I was copying the top secret Pentagon Papers that fall, but if I had I would have given the Papers to the newspapers right away--rather than two years later, after waiting in vain for Congress to act on them--in desperate hopes of heading off massive escalation and possible nuclear war. A gripping and essential read!"--Daniel Ellsberg, author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers
About the Author
Product details
- Publisher : University Press of Kansas; First Edition (June 5, 2015)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 448 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0700620826
- ISBN-13 : 978-0700620821
- Item Weight : 1.85 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.5 x 1.5 x 9.25 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,663,455 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,180 in International Diplomacy (Books)
- #2,300 in Asian Politics
- #3,168 in Vietnam War History (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
However, there are also several weaknesses to Kimball's and Burr's almost entirely negative analysis. From the beginning, the North Vietnamese were adamant on two conditions to which no American president (save perhaps George McGovern) would have agreed: the overthrow of our South Vietnamese ally's sitting government and withdrawal without return of American prisoners of war. The fact that Nixon and Kissinger finally did achieve satisfactory resolution of these two barriers is insufficiently discussed and credited here. Nixon and Kissinger did better than expert establishment opinion had a right to expect, or did expect, in January, 1969.
Even more importantly, what probably led to North Vietnam's belated concessions is also given short shrift. As in most Vietnam era books, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird is favorably portrayed here as a shrewd political operator with his own agenda, but not overtly recognized, along with his field commander Creighton Abrams, as the one American high official who did actually understand how to end the war and did the most to achieve that outcome. But enough is here to show Laird to be by far Nixon's most perceptive, effective aide and not just a canny manipulator. From day one, Laird thought Nixon's and Kissinger's diplomatic efforts were futile -- and their sporadic, apocalyptic, and often intemperate escalations dangerously counterproductive by fueling unnecessary domestic and international dissent. Instead, he quietly poured his own immense energies into the Vietnamization of the war effort he thought would ultimately determine how it could end. Whatever the long-term prospects of the South Vietnamese military in 1972, there is no doubt it performed admirably in the spring offensive that year and that that performance, more than anything else, led to Nixon's and Kissinger's ultimately successful, if fragile, negotiated settlement. Laird himself appears to believe that, had his and Abrams' efforts been sustained by the Ford Administration, a more lasting successful result could probably have been secured.
Regardless of one's initial impulses on that issue (Kimball and Burr themselves are clearly skeptical), Laird's mastery as Secretary of Defense should give credibility to views that deserve more thoughtful consideration than they have yet received in Vietnam War histories. Melvin Laird is to the Vietnam War what George Marshall was to World War II -- a behind-the-scenes American hero. Our voluminous Vietnam literature is rich in the details of Nixon's and Kissinger's machinations that are often described, though not here, far more favorably than warranted. That it is equivalently weak in considering what Laird did on his own (and in courageous disregard of both his Joint Chiefs of Staff military subordinates and White House superior) is an historical misjudgment and injustice deserving the full-bodied reappraisal the authors of this valuable work would appear very capable of providing. Here's hoping they or others take it on.
This a an incredibly detailed book about the year 1969 and the failure of Nixon and Kissinger to try to convince the Russians and the North Vietnamese that Nixon was a “madman” who would invade, bomb, blockade or nuke the North to win the war. the Soviets never seemed noticed or react to the faux nuclear alerts, the pretend mining or the harassing of Russian freighters. Dobrynin, their ambassador outwitted both Kissinger and Nixon and even found the latter pathetic. Nixon and most of the military and foreign affairs advisors knew the war could not be won but they argued with Nixon because he often did not let them in on his strategy. He almost pled with the Soviets to convince the North to let the Saigon government survive for a couple of years and then the North could take over. Like Johnson, Nixon was not going to be the first president to lose a war. And he wasn’t. Johnson was the second and Nixon the third. (Madison certainly lost the War of 1812 and Ike didn’t win Korea.)
The Vietnam war was eventually lost but it went on for 6 more years and Nixon killed a million more Asians after US troops withdrew. He bombed to allow the South to survive for decent period of time. The book is so intensely detailed for the year 1969 and then what happens afterward is more or less summarized. I wonder if that is because the material which might have let the author write in such detail was unavailable or he just wanted to take on the shorter project because he could more than adequately make his point. I don’t know. But why he went ahead and bombed the North, mined its harbors and invaded Cambodia when he was so hesitant to do so in 1969 because of feared Soviet and domestic reaction, is still somewhat of a mystery to me. He was never going to nuke and never did although he and Kissinger continued to bandy around hints.
From all the detail we find that Nixon, at least, could run the government. Well, he had 8 years as vice-president to learn how to do so. Seeing his use of various military, CIA, State Department and Rand Corp. resources I begin to wonder how Donald Trump is doing. Maybe the deep government of the military, the State Department, the intelligence services and big business is running the show and Donald is merely frothing from the mouth. As Glenn Greanwalt worries, the deep government may be more dangerous than the elected government even if it is now working to keep things from crashing. Nixon certainly negotiated with the deep government. And we know from the magnificent bio of Alan Dulles that they did in JFK. Was Nixon worse than Donald? I don’t know. John Dean, Nixon’s attorney, says that Donald calls out in public what Nixon said in private. I don’t think we have quite reached that point yet. But Trump can’t control himself so hope springs eternal.
This is a book for someone who wants to know the nitty gritty of Nixon’s presidency and both his and Kissinger’s real blindness. Certainly Kissinger was playing Nixon but the reverse was true sometimes although Nixon was not doing it consciously.
One wonders why the North wouldn’t play his game. They would have come to power a lot sooner and many less people would have died. But then they had been betrayed in 1954 so why should they trust capitalist dogs. I am not sure I would have.
Charlie Fisher




