US forces with a second JFK term and shorter/no Vietnam war?

Citing the US Naval Institute article:


There were two incidents. The first (August 2, 1964) involved the USS Maddox, which it was fired upon by a NV torpedo boat and the Maddox returned fire. This event was supported by NSA documentation showing that the NV navy gunboats communicated the incident with Hanoi.

The second incident (August 4, 1964) involving the Maddox and the USS Turner Joy, which included 'faulty signal intelligence' and a misrepresentation of the facts by Robert McNamara led to the reporting of a second attack. The basis for declaring this an attack was based on very flimsy evidence, which was likely obtained from a very nervous US Navy crew, who misinterpreted lights on the water, boats that came near the area, and false sonar information. There was no evidence from among NSA documents released that the misinterpretation of the events was intentional from anyone. However, there are many historians who believe otherwise, and the NSA collaborates that their was no real evidence, such as SIGINT data collected on the Aug 2 incident, that was obtained during the Aug 4 attack.

However, many point to the statement made by Johnson on the incident saying, “Hell, those damn, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.” This implies that the attack information supplied by the naval crew on the Aug 4 incident was unsubstantiated by any other agency and he was not confident in the report. How long after the incident did he make this statement? Idk.

It is unknown of course if Kennedy, having received the same intelligence, would have believed the events as presented to Johnson or came to the same conclusions that an attack had or had not occurred. If not, both did not believe the information were they 'railroaded' into making a decision to go to war by politicians and generals? We can only assume that if the intelligence was believed (no matter how confusing the information was) and the forces that shaped Johnson's decisions were the same that Kennedy would have faced (i.e. an upcoming election, the need to take a hard stand against communism, and a show of force to prevent a future attack (as on Aug 2), Kennedy, from my perspective, would have had only a few options available:

1. Done nothing, which would have made him look weak on foreign affairs.
2. Condemned the action and impose some embargo on NV. However, the Geneva Accords of 1954 suspended export licenses to NV. Johnson imposed sanctions on commercial and financial transactions when the war started, which did little to NV as their aid and economic system was tied to China and the USSR during the war. Attacks by NV would likely continue in SV as embargos would have had little affect.
3. Conduct a limited attack on NV naval installations and airfields. This could easily have escalated in to a war with N Vietnam. Hanoi would likely have stepped up their campaign of terrorism in S. Vietnam (i.e. destroying bridges and schools, burning medical aid stations, bombings of public spaces, and kidnapping of civilians). Soviet and Chinese aid in military equipment would also have continued.
4. Assisted SV army and air forces in prolonged attacks against the North without regular ground forces. This would have been very limited in effect without more training and better aircraft and equipment for the SV army and air force. Essentially, the US would have been advising, then leading SV forces in combat against a growing NV military threat.

All but one of these calls for military action and the first option would not have been a real option for Kennedy in the political climate he would have found himself in during the 1964 election.
 
Dynoman said:
Citing the US Naval Institute article:


There were two incidents. The first (August 2, 1964) involved the USS Maddox, which it was fired upon by a NV torpedo boat and the Maddox returned fire. This event was supported by NSA documentation showing that the NV navy gunboats communicated the incident with Hanoi.

The second incident (August 4, 1964) involving the Maddox and the USS Turner Joy, which included 'faulty signal intelligence' and a misrepresentation of the facts by Robert McNamara led to the reporting of a second attack. The basis for declaring this an attack was based on very flimsy evidence, which was likely obtained from a very nervous US Navy crew, who misinterpreted lights on the water, boats that came near the area, and false sonar information. There was no evidence from among NSA documents released that the misinterpretation of the events was intentional from anyone. However, there are many historians who believe otherwise, and the NSA collaborates that their was no real evidence, such as SIGINT data collected on the Aug 2 incident, that was obtained during the Aug 4 attack.

However, many point to the statement made by Johnson on the incident saying, “Hell, those damn, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.” This implies that the attack information supplied by the naval crew on the Aug 4 incident was unsubstantiated by any other agency and he was not confident in the report. How long after the incident did he make this statement? Idk.

It is unknown of course if Kennedy, having received the same intelligence, would have believed the events as presented to Johnson or came to the same conclusions that an attack had or had not occurred. If not, both did not believe the information were they 'railroaded' into making a decision to go to war by politicians and generals? We can only assume that if the intelligence was believed (no matter how confusing the information was) and the forces that shaped Johnson's decisions were the same that Kennedy would have faced (i.e. an upcoming election, the need to take a hard stand against communism, and a show of force to prevent a future attack (as on Aug 2), Kennedy, from my perspective, would have had only a few options available:

1. Done nothing, which would have made him look weak on foreign affairs.
2. Condemned the action and impose some embargo on NV. However, the Geneva Accords of 1954 suspended export licenses to NV. Johnson imposed sanctions on commercial and financial transactions when the war started, which did little to NV as their aid and economic system was tied to China and the USSR during the war. Attacks by NV would likely continue in SV as embargos would have had little affect.
3. Conduct a limited attack on NV naval installations and airfields. This could easily have escalated in to a war with N Vietnam. Hanoi would likely have stepped up their campaign of terrorism in S. Vietnam (i.e. destroying bridges and schools, burning medical aid stations, bombings of public spaces, and kidnapping of civilians). Soviet and Chinese aid in military equipment would also have continued.
4. Assisted SV army and air forces in prolonged attacks against the North without regular ground forces. This would have been very limited in effect without more training and better aircraft and equipment for the SV army and air force. Essentially, the US would have been advising, then leading SV forces in combat against a growing NV military threat.

All but one of these calls for military action and the first option would not have been a real option for Kennedy in the political climate he would have found himself in during the 1964 election.
Click to expand...

"We can only assume..."? Seriously? In depth research requires in depth research, not some quote from here or there. Also, online forums are a bad place for actual researchers since all and sundry can interrupt to make unsubstantiated remarks. Imagine a closed meeting of The Royal Society being interrupted by some random person from the local pub. In that case, he would be escorted out.

The above is a good example of unsubstantiated assumptions after the posting of a credible article from a credible source.

President Kennedy, like all Presidents, would have been given a daily briefing related to current events. He was well aware of his standing among politicians and the military regarding the 1964 election. He had to make plans to keep combat troops out of Vietnam. I previously posted the headline to a Pacific Stars and Stripes story about a White House Report, "U.S. seen out of Viet by '65." which was apparently ignored here. There is nothing vague about that.

"As his first step, Kennedy sent Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Secretary McNamara to Saigon in late September 1963. They returned to the White House and presented him with their voluminous report on October 2, 1963. In part that report said: 'It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time....'"

"That time," as stated clearly in their report, was the end of 1965. One thousand troops were already slated to come home in time for Christmas 1963.

"Kennedy planned to get out of Vietnam and to turn the war over to a new leader in South Vietnam. This was the first order of business. To his adversaries, this confirmed the nature of the course he had chosen. They began to move, to move swiftly and with finality."

"In March 1964 the familiar team of McNamara and Taylor made another fact-finding trip to South Vietnam. They returned and made their report to the President and the NSC [National Security Council - Ed.] on March 16. As a result of this report the President approved and signed NSAM #288 on March 17, 1964. By this time, of course, the Kennedy plan for Vietnam had been altered considerably. In their report, McNamara and Taylor said that 'the situation in Vietnam was considerably worse than had been previously realized at the time of adoption of NSAM #273' on November 26, 1963 -- not to mention at the time of NSAM #263, which was signed by Kennedy on October 11, 1963."

"On July 30, 1964, 'South Vietnamese' PT boats made a midnight attack, including an amphibious commando raid on the Hon Me and Hon Nieu islands just off the coast of North Vietnam above the 19th parallel, north latitude. The North Vietnamese responded by sending their high-speed KOMAR boats after the raiders. The 'Swift' PT boats escaped; but the KOMARS spotted the U.S.S. Maddox in the vicinity. The Maddox claimed that the KOMARS fired torpedoes and that 'a bullet fragment was recovered from the destroyer's superstructure.'

"On the night of August 3, 1964, more commando raids were made on the coast of North Vietnam, and the Vinh Sonh radar installation was hit. Because of its importance, this raid was most certainly made by CIA mercenaries. Following it, a claim was made of an intercepted radio transmission saying, 'North Vietnamese naval forces had been ordered to attack the patrol' consisting of the Maddox and Turner Joy. It was this incident that triggered the action that led to the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of August 1964."

The above quoted portion was written by Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty who worked in the Pentagon. After the assassination of President Kennedy, he resigned. The following is from a letter he received from The Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated 26 December 1963.

"SUBJECT: Letter of appreciation

"TO: Colonel Leroy F. Prouty
Chief, Special Operations Division
Office of the Special Assistant for
Counterinsurgency and Special Activities,
Joint Staff"

Colonel Prouty had been involved with the military since the Second World War. President Johnson had been maneuvered into a position where he responded to what was presented as credible intelligence, forcing him to declare war.
 
Last edited:
Edwest4 - I agree with your statements, however, as Fredrik Logevall (Pultizer Prize winning historian) "NSAM 263 hardly represented the kind of far-reaching policy initiative that the incipient-withdrawal proponents suggest. It was but one part of a larger 'selective pressures' policy designed to push the Diem regime into greater effectiveness." Logevall concluded that "The great preponderance of the evidence...would appear to refute any notion that John Kennedy had decided to withdraw from Vietnam." However, Logevall goes on to speculate that Kennedy, because of his character and personality, might have considered, at a later date, a unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam."

I agree with your statement: "President Johnson had been maneuvered into a position where he responded to what was presented as credible intelligence, forcing him to declare war."

My stance is despite Johnson's claim, the day after Kennedy was killed, affirming the withdrawal called for in NSAM 263, which was initiated with the withdraw of 1,000 troops of the over 15,000 troops that remained, by saying "The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963," his decisions were shaped by the events that transpired afterwards.

Kennedy, if he would have lived, having the same advisors and intelligence available to Johnson, would have likely made similar decisions. I believe Kennedy was an intelligent and contemplative individual who did not make rash decisions nor necessarily trusted what he was told by the CIA or the Joint Chiefs, however, he did listen to McNamara and it was there that I think the seed of war was planted.
 
Dynoman said:
Edwest4 - I agree with your statements, however, as Fredrik Logevall (Pultizer Prize winning historian) "NSAM 263 hardly represented the kind of far-reaching policy initiative that the incipient-withdrawal proponents suggest. It was but one part of a larger 'selective pressures' policy designed to push the Diem regime into greater effectiveness." Logevall concluded that "The great preponderance of the evidence...would appear to refute any notion that John Kennedy had decided to withdraw from Vietnam." However, Logevall goes on to speculate that Kennedy, because of his character and personality, might have considered, at a later date, a unilateral withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam."

I agree with your statement: "President Johnson had been maneuvered into a position where he responded to what was presented as credible intelligence, forcing him to declare war."

My stance is despite Johnson's claim, the day after Kennedy was killed, affirming the withdrawal called for in NSAM 263, which was initiated with the withdraw of 1,000 troops of the over 15,000 troops that remained, by saying "The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963," his decisions were shaped by the events that transpired afterwards.

Kennedy, if he would have lived, having the same advisors and intelligence available to Johnson, would have likely made similar decisions. I believe Kennedy was an intelligent and contemplative individual who did not make rash decisions nor necessarily trusted what he was told by the CIA or the Joint Chiefs, however, he did listen to McNamara and it was there that I think the seed of war was planted.
Click to expand...

"Ngo Dinh Diem, the first President of South Vietnam, was killed on November 1, 1963, and Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963."

I find it strange that you would cite a historian as opposed to Colonel Prouty who was there and in a position to deal with classified information. Further, both he and others were sometimes asked to provide guidance.

"First of all, NSAM #263, October 11, 1963, was a crucial White House document. Much of it, guided by White House policy, was actually written by my boss in the Pentagon, General Krulak, myself, and others of his staff."

Colonel Prouty was not just a passive observer.

You paint a picture of Kennedy that is not accurate. His brother, Robert Kennedy, was Attorney General, and they often discussed sensitive matters together. Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and he did not entirely trust the intelligence coming in either. He had served on a PT boat during the war so he had seen war first-hand. He was not just another politician.

"...
his decisions were shaped by the events that transpired afterwards.
Click to expand...


That's an assumption only. You seem to forget that Kennedy blamed the CIA for the failed Bay of Pigs operation. Of course Castro contacted his friends in the Kremlin who sent in Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. I watched President Kennedy announce this to the people on TV. He also said that an attack on Western Europe would be regarded as an attack against the United States. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were urging him to go to war against the Soviet Union by striking first and ending the threat. He did not follow their advice.

McNamara? He listened to McNamara? What gave you that idea?
 
Last edited:
Why would the Gulf of Tonkin incident not have happened?
DESOTO patrols off China and North Korea had been taking place since April 1962. In mid-1962 a division of large minesweepers (MSOs) had been conducting ELINT operations off North and South Vietnam and they were replaced by destroyers under DESOTO, the first operation of which in the Gulf of Tonkin was in December 1962
In July 1963 the DOD took over the CIA's 'Nautilus' commando raids and spy-insertion missions as Operational Plan 34A when the switchover took effect on 1 January 1964 - Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group taking control.

DESOTO and OPLAN34A were running side-by-side, both were experiencing reactions - often the OPLAN34A missions using small craft like the Nasty-class PT boats would cause reactions from the North Vietnamese Navy and that Elint would be hoovered up by the DESOTO ships.
At some point the reaction was bound to lead to an exchange of fire. The first incident on August 2 1964 was probably the Captain of USS Maddox getting too jumpy - perhaps the culminative effect of nearly 2 years of these operations and expecting some kind of reaction - perhaps on faulty intel of South Vietnamese intentions. Either way two nights later that jumpiness got worse and they fired at nothing. I suspect the whole thing wasn't so much a carefully contrived plot - both DESOTO and 34A had been running for too long, but a face saving exercise at having opened fire for no reason on two occasions and relayed up the command chain all the way to the White House as a provocation in order to cover up the fact there was no threat.

But the key thing is that DESOTO and OPLAN34A were Kennedy administration initiatives.
There were two fatal mistakes.
First, removing CIA control from Nautilus was counter-productive, once the USN had opened fire the operations lost any deniability - it wasn't as if it could be handwaved away as being deniable. A couple of South Vietnamese in a CIA-supplied and operated boat doing some smuggling was one thing but this was a US-flagged destroyer.
Two, these operations were inherently dangerous because any recon operation designed to set off a reaction to be measured by the intel platform risks that reaction being serious - thus all the Elint aircraft shot down in the Baltic/Barents/Pacific, Gary Powers and Rudolf Anderson, USS Liberty, USS Pueblo were exactly the same case - their luck ran out. Sooner or later one of the NV P-4s were going to have a pop at a US ship it was only a matter of time.

Would Kennedy have been more cautious? Who knows for sure but we can make some surmises. On the one hand it was a minor skirmish in a campaign of skirmishes of two nations already in proxy combat with each other. In the grand scheme of Cold War geopolitics it was almost a non-event. Kennedy might have asked for more detailed information but its unlikely that Captain John Herrick would own up to opening fire for no reason. McNamara and McGeorge Bundy felt the evidence was dubious and its likely that Kennedy would have listened to them

Whether it was a Johnson stitch up is open to question but the fact he authorised Operation Pierce Arrow within 30 minutes and addressed the public just before midnight on the same day is rather suspect. Given that the 'incidents' were very minor infractions given the scale of previous Cold War incidents (no loss of life, one single bullet hit) this seems like overkill. In other cases RB-47s could get blown apart by Soviet SAMs and the public were told nothing. Four years later the Pueblo Incident provoked a massive military response by the USN and USAF but no active combat took place. Given his previous form Kennedy is unlikely to have gone to the press nor to have authorised a Pierce Arrow-style operation that quickly, though he is unlikely to have been politically unable not to retaliate in some way. The caveat of course is, unlike the USSR shooting down a U-2 or Cuba in October 1962 there is no direct risk to the USA, no nuclear retaliation. North Vietnam is a convenient punchbag with far fewer consequences.

But we have to ask ourselves, if this wasn't a stitch up then 2 and 4 August might never have happened so its immaterial what Kennedy would have done - though both DESOTO and 34A were provoking probes and one that provocation was likely to cause a genuine incident at some point. If it was a genuine combination of trigger-happy nerves and poor intel assessment from NSA then its 50/50 whether Kennedy would believe the USN and NSA story or not. Even if he did its open to question what he would do about it. If it was a conspiracy its hard to determine whether Kennedy was unlikely to manufacture an event like that - after all Bay of Pigs went ahead etc., DESOTO and 34A were already running, all the aspects were there to be used in just that way.
 
Hood said:
Why would the Gulf of Tonkin incident not have happened?
DESOTO patrols off China and North Korea had been taking place since April 1962. In mid-1962 a division of large minesweepers (MSOs) had been conducting ELINT operations off North and South Vietnam and they were replaced by destroyers under DESOTO, the first operation of which in the Gulf of Tonkin was in December 1962
In July 1963 the DOD took over the CIA's 'Nautilus' commando raids and spy-insertion missions as Operational Plan 34A when the switchover took effect on 1 January 1964 - Military Assistance Command, Vietnam – Studies and Observations Group taking control.

DESOTO and OPLAN34A were running side-by-side, both were experiencing reactions - often the OPLAN34A missions using small craft like the Nasty-class PT boats would cause reactions from the North Vietnamese Navy and that Elint would be hoovered up by the DESOTO ships.
At some point the reaction was bound to lead to an exchange of fire. The first incident on August 2 1964 was probably the Captain of USS Maddox getting too jumpy - perhaps the culminative effect of nearly 2 years of these operations and expecting some kind of reaction - perhaps on faulty intel of South Vietnamese intentions. Either way two nights later that jumpiness got worse and they fired at nothing. I suspect the whole thing wasn't so much a carefully contrived plot - both DESOTO and 34A had been running for too long, but a face saving exercise at having opened fire for no reason on two occasions and relayed up the command chain all the way to the White House as a provocation in order to cover up the fact there was no threat.

But the key thing is that DESOTO and OPLAN34A were Kennedy administration initiatives.
There were two fatal mistakes.
First, removing CIA control from Nautilus was counter-productive, once the USN had opened fire the operations lost any deniability - it wasn't as if it could be handwaved away as being deniable. A couple of South Vietnamese in a CIA-supplied and operated boat doing some smuggling was one thing but this was a US-flagged destroyer.
Two, these operations were inherently dangerous because any recon operation designed to set off a reaction to be measured by the intel platform risks that reaction being serious - thus all the Elint aircraft shot down in the Baltic/Barents/Pacific, Gary Powers and Rudolf Anderson, USS Liberty, USS Pueblo were exactly the same case - their luck ran out. Sooner or later one of the NV P-4s were going to have a pop at a US ship it was only a matter of time.

Would Kennedy have been more cautious? Who knows for sure but we can make some surmises. On the one hand it was a minor skirmish in a campaign of skirmishes of two nations already in proxy combat with each other. In the grand scheme of Cold War geopolitics it was almost a non-event. Kennedy might have asked for more detailed information but its unlikely that Captain John Herrick would own up to opening fire for no reason. McNamara and McGeorge Bundy felt the evidence was dubious and its likely that Kennedy would have listened to them

Whether it was a Johnson stitch up is open to question but the fact he authorised Operation Pierce Arrow within 30 minutes and addressed the public just before midnight on the same day is rather suspect. Given that the 'incidents' were very minor infractions given the scale of previous Cold War incidents (no loss of life, one single bullet hit) this seems like overkill. In other cases RB-47s could get blown apart by Soviet SAMs and the public were told nothing. Four years later the Pueblo Incident provoked a massive military response by the USN and USAF but no active combat took place. Given his previous form Kennedy is unlikely to have gone to the press nor to have authorised a Pierce Arrow-style operation that quickly, though he is unlikely to have been politically unable not to retaliate in some way. The caveat of course is, unlike the USSR shooting down a U-2 or Cuba in October 1962 there is no direct risk to the USA, no nuclear retaliation. North Vietnam is a convenient punchbag with far fewer consequences.

But we have to ask ourselves, if this wasn't a stitch up then 2 and 4 August might never have happened so its immaterial what Kennedy would have done - though both DESOTO and 34A were provoking probes and one that provocation was likely to cause a genuine incident at some point. If it was a genuine combination of trigger-happy nerves and poor intel assessment from NSA then its 50/50 whether Kennedy would believe the USN and NSA story or not. Even if he did its open to question what he would do about it. If it was a conspiracy its hard to determine whether Kennedy was unlikely to manufacture an event like that - after all Bay of Pigs went ahead etc., DESOTO and 34A were already running, all the aspects were there to be used in just that way.
Click to expand...

More unsubstantiated assumptions.

The wartime Office of Strategic Services, along with its counterpart, the Special Operations Executive, had men in countries around the world. Colonel Prouty was there in 1945 and witnessed the following.

"Despite the terrific damage done to mainland Japan by aerial bombardment, even before the use of atomic bombs, the invasion of Japan had been considered to be an essential prelude to victory and to 'unconditional' surrender. Planning for this invasion had been under way for years. As soon as the island of Okinawa became available as the launching site for this operation, supplies and equipment for an invasion force of at least half a million men began to be stacked up, fifteen to twenty feet high, all over the island.

"Then, with the early surrender of Japan, this massive invasion did not occur, and the use of this enormous stockpile of military equipment was not necessary. Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war materiel was reloaded onto those ships. I was on Okinawa at that time, and during some business in the harbor area I asked the harbormaster if all that new materiel was being returned to the States.

"His response was direct and surprising: 'Hell, no! They ain't never goin' to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina.'

"In 1945, none of us had any idea that the first battles of the Cold War were going to be fought by U.S. military units in these two regions beginning in 1950 and 1965 -- yet that is precisely what had been planned, and it is precisely what happened. Who made that decision back in 1943-1945? Who selected Syngman Rhee and Ho Chi Minh to be our new allies as early as mid-1945?'

The OSS was disbanded in 1945. It was briefly replaced by the Central Intelligence Group, and reappeared as the CIA. The same men who were scouting the world for the military also served other U.S. interests. Trade between countries resumed after the war. The contest was about where the money would go. It was either going to the treasuries of Communist countries or those aligned with the West. The planning for the new order began before the end of World War II.

The CIA arranged for the assassination of President Kennedy. It was done to ensure that he did not stand in the way of operational objectives in Vietnam. Certain events were arranged to happen by the CIA with NSA support.

In 1966, attorney Mark Lane published a book titled Rush to Judgment. He showed that the Warren Commission had omitted and concealed evidence related to Kennedy's assassination. In 2011, another book by Mark Lane was released. The title says it all: "Last Word -- My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK."
 
edwest4 said:
The CIA arranged for the assassination of President Kennedy. It was done to ensure that he did not stand in the way of operational objectives in Vietnam. Certain events were arranged to happen by the CIA with NSA support.
Click to expand...
Warning: This is now heading into Conspiracy Theory territory
 
The original question regarding US military forces, and I assume force levels, without Vietnam would have been approximately 2,500,000 deployed worldwide. These force levels would have likely been around 2 million through the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. Despite social backlash from an unpopular war the numbers appear to remain consistent. With regards to military projects I believe the reason identified or at least partially so) for these projects cancelations was the competition for funds with the war. A couple of these I believe were MOL- Manned Orbiting Laboratory and Lockheed YF-12.
 

Attachments

  • US Military Personnel.jpg
    US Military Personnel.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 8
Dynoman said:
The original question regarding US military forces, and I assume force levels, without Vietnam would have been approximately 2,500,000 deployed worldwide. These force levels would have likely been around 2 million through the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. Despite social backlash from an unpopular war the numbers appear to remain consistent. With regards to military projects I believe the reason identified or at least partially so) for these projects cancelations was the competition for funds with the war. A couple of these I believe were MOL- Manned Orbiting Laboratory and Lockheed YF-12.
Click to expand...
YF-12 was not cancelled due to the War taking up the funding.

YF-12 was cancelled by McNamara because he wanted the F-111 to be that interceptor. Congress allocated the funds for 100x YF-12s, McNamara refused to release the funds.
 
Scott Kenny said:
YF-12 was not cancelled due to the War taking up the funding.

YF-12 was cancelled by McNamara because he wanted the F-111 to be that interceptor. Congress allocated the funds for 100x YF-12s, McNamara refused to release the funds.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. In other words, no documents or credible references were presented.

Colonel Prouty tells us this is what happened. Remember, he was working at the Pentagon during this time.

"The aircraft the military desired was called a 'Tactical Fighter Experimental,' or TFX. The air force wanted an extremely unconventional aircraft, with wings that could be swept back in flight for higher speed."

"By this time, the total program had been increased to 1,700 aircraft - 235 of which would be for the navy - for a total initial procurement cost of $6.5 billion."

"So Kennedy added Labor Secretary Arthur Goldberg, a wise old World War II OSS veteran, to the TFX team. ... Goldberg had an idea. It was to use this $6.5 billion potential in every possible way, in selected 'politically' marginal counties throughout the United States, to strengthen the Democratic party. Goldberg and McNamara began to work together. McNamara set up a suite of offices, one corridor ring in from his own in the Pentagon, with a staff that had nothing else to do than to plot the course of the TFX source selection program."

"Then Gilpatric closed with: 'Mr. McNamara and I , after an acceptable TFX proposal was offered, had to make a judgment between two proposals... the air force and navy will get a better buy for the taxpayers' dollars than would have been forthcoming if the contract had been let earlier....'

"Gilpatric made these statements during a time of intense Senate hearings on the TFX. You will note how carefully both he and McNamara avoided any direct mention that they had arbitrarily gone along with the Goldberg formula augmented by the assurances of Kelly Johnson at Lockheed.

"Indeed, Kelly Johnson's role in this selection has not been mentioned elsewhere. I was a friend of Roger Lewis's, president of General Dynamics, and was told this account of the 'Skunk Works' role by Mr. Lewis himself.

"To the Kennedy circle, the TFX, the Skybolt, the Dyna-Soar, the atomic-powered aircraft, and all the rest that had fallen into their laps with the election were just what Kennedy, Goldberg, and McNamara took them to be: devices that could be used to direct money into political districts that needed it for their own benefit and to assure the election of a Kennedy for years to come."
 
Last edited:
edwest4 said:
That is not accurate. In other words, no documents or credible references were presented.

Colonel Prouty tells us this is what happened. Remember, he was working at the Pentagon during this time.

"The aircraft the military desired was called a 'Tactical Fighter Experimental,' or TFX. The air force wanted an extremely unconventional aircraft, with wings that could be swept back in flight for higher speed."

"By this time, the total program had been increased to 1,700 aircraft - 235 of which would be for the navy - for a total initial procurement cost of $6.5 billion."

"So Kennedy added Labor Secretary Arthur Goldberg, a wise old World War II OSS veteran, to the TFX team. ... Goldberg had an idea. It was to use this $6.5 billion potential in every possible way, in selected 'politically' marginal counties throughout the United States, to strengthen the Democratic party. Goldberg and McNamara began to work together. McNamara set up a suite of offices, one corridor ring in from his own in the Pentagon, with a staff that had nothing else to do than to plot the course of the TFX source selection program."

"Then Gilpatric closed with: 'Mr. McNamara and I , after an acceptable TFX proposal was offered, had to make a judgment between two proposals... the air force and navy will get a better buy for the taxpayers' dollars than would have been forthcoming if the contract had been let earlier....'

"Gilpatric made these statements during a time of intense Senate hearings on the TFX. You will note how carefully both he and McNamara avoided any direct mention that they had arbitrarily gone along with the Goldberg formula augmented by the assurances of Kelly Johnson at Lockheed.

"Indeed, Kelly Johnson's role in this selection has not been mentioned elsewhere. I was a friend of Roger Lewis's, president of General Dynamics, and was told this account of the 'Skunk Works' role by Mr. Lewis himself.

"To the Kennedy circle, the TFX, the Skybolt, the Dyna-Soar, the atomic-powered aircraft, and all the rest that had fallen into their laps with the election were just what Kennedy, Goldberg, and McNamara took them to be: devices that could be used to direct money into political districts that needed it for their own benefit and to assure the election of a Kennedy for years to come."
Click to expand...
So why did Congress authorize the purchase of 100x YF12s?
 
Wow, this has escalated into a fecal matter poop storm faster than, say - the Vietnam war, 1965 ? (Am I allowed to say poop ? Poop... POOOOP !)
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
X-Planes at Edwards by Steven Pace, ISBN 978-1-6106078605, page 53.

On 14 May 1965, the USAF placed an order for 93x F-12Bs for Air Defense Command. McNamara refused to release the funds for 3 consecutive years.
Click to expand...

Thank you. But this has nothing to do with the Kennedy administration.
 
edwest4 said:
Thank you. But this has nothing to do with the Kennedy administration.
Click to expand...
Gets back to the power McNamara had. He literally ignored Congressional approved budgets.

Can you imagine the backlash today of a SecDef refusing to release funds for a program because it was competing with his pet project (the TFX)?

edwest4 said:
Colonel Prouty tells us this is what happened. Remember, he was working at the Pentagon during this time.

"The aircraft the military desired was called a 'Tactical Fighter Experimental,' or TFX. The air force wanted an extremely unconventional aircraft, with wings that could be swept back in flight for higher speed."
Click to expand...
And no, that is NOT what "the military" (ie, the people expecting to fight in that airplane) wanted. That is what McNamara the SecDef wanted. USN wanted no part of the F-111, it was far too big and heavy for the Fleet Air Defense role (later occupied by the F-14 Tomcat), and the engines sucked for a fighter.

McNamara's big thing was to combine procurement to save money. It worked with the F-4 and A-7, and the USAF version of the A-7 (A-7D) was such an improvement over the originals that the USN ordered enough (A-7E) to replace their earlier versions. But the F-4 was probably the first really good jet multi role fighter-bomber, and the A-7 Corsair II is one of the best battlefield interdiction aircraft ever made. Notice that both planes were originally designed for the USN and then modified for the USAF, but doing the same roles in both services.

But the design brief for the USAF TFX was a supersonic low altitude penetrator; while the design brief for the USN TFX was fleet air defense that required a supersonic dash plus long loiter times. Those are not compatible requirements!
 
edwest4 said:
The NSA falsified the information coming in. There was no attack on U.S. warships. That's no theory, it's documented. President Kennedy stated at the time that Vietnam would get U.S. military aid but no troops. As I wrote previously, this war was triggered by China,. Communist China, detonating their first atomic bomb. The Pentagon feared that Vietnam would be occupied by Communist Chinese troops so they wanted to divide the country into North and South just like they did with Korea in 1953, just 10 years earlier.
Click to expand...
On this falsification of The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Pentagon game played extensive scenarios in relation to the much vaunted The Domino Effect narrative [I'll attempt to find and denote the actual war game names and dates in the 60's, when I find them] only to emphasis that it's much used fear mongering was just as bogus.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I found the name and details of the said Vietnam War era war games. They were referred to as Sigma
I first heard of these Sigma war games when listening to the intriguing interview of historian-writer Gordon M. Goldstein in the following YouTube video at around Time 53:30
View: https://youtu.be/8ZUhxysFHMY?si=clF6bRi7djPUOh-S


Additionally, I also found the following list of Sigma war games, which emphasise that they were in fact more extensive than I envisaged:
Sigma war games
The Sigma war games were a series of classified high level war games played in the Pentagon during the 1960s to strategize the conduct of the burgeoning Vietnam War. The games were designed to replicate then-current conditions in Indochina, with an aim toward predicting future events in the region. They were staffed with high ranking officials standing in to represent both domestic and foreign characters; stand-ins were chosen for their expertise concerning those they were called upon to represent. The games were supervised by a Control appointed to oversee both sides. The opposing Blue and Red Teams customary in war games were designated the friendly and enemy forces as was usual; however, several smaller teams were sometimes subsumed under Red and Blue Teams. Over the course of the games, the Red Team at times contained the Yellow Team for the People's Republic of China, the Brown Team for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Black Team for the Viet Cong,[1] and Green for the USSR.[2]
Preparation for these simulations was quite extensive. A game staff of as many as 45 people researched and developed the scenarios. The actual play of the war game involved 30 to 35 participants. There are four or five simulations per year, solicited secretively from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and major military commands.[3] As with other war planning activities, the games were conducted in a classified environment and the details and results of the games were not publicized outside U.S. national security policy circles.


Sigma 1-62
Main articles: Sigma I-62 war game and Laotian Civil War
See also: Farm Gate
In February 1962, some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the John F. Kennedy administration war gamed the unfolding situation in Southeast Asia. The war game director noted, "it appears that Red wanted to win without a war while Blue wanted not to lose also without a war." The conclusion drawn from Sigma I-62 was that American intervention would be unsuccessful.[4][5] This was the first of the Sigma war games.[6]


Sigma I-63
Main article: Sigma I-63 war game
See also: Laotian Civil War and Battle of Luang Namtha
Sigma I-63 was played in Spring 1963. It was held with senior level officials setting policy for the Red and Blue Teams. Working level officials were the actual players.[2]
Ambassador William H. Sullivan was a participant. His recollection is that Sigma I-63 ended in a fictional 1970 with 500,000 American troops locked in a stalemate in Vietnam, and conscription riots in the United States.[2]

Sigma II-64
Main article: Sigma II-64 war game
Sigma II-64 was scheduled as a follow-up to Sigma I-64.[1] It was designed, run, and umpired by the RAND Corporation.[10] It took place between 8 and 17 September 1964.[11] It was posed to answer three concerns of the U.S. military. Would bombing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam hinder its support of the southern insurgency? Conversely, would the bombing help the south? And would they affect joint operations by the People's Army of Vietnam and the Viet Cong?[12]
Overall, game results were discouraging. Vietnam's agricultural economy was largely self-sustaining, with imported foreign aid supplying its technological needs.[12] With game play so closely paralleling real life plans and events, it was concluded that raising the necessary American troops would require a state of national emergency within the United States.[1] The increase in manpower would come at the expense of lessened domestic political support.[13] It would take another military action as prominent as the Tonkin Gulf incident to justify that escalation.[1] Most importantly, Sigma II-64's results undercut the basic assumption that a gradually escalating aerial campaign could lead to U.S. victory.[14] The actual conclusion was that bombing would stiffen the North Vietnamese will to resist.[8]
It was noted that President Johnson could actually duplicate Blue Team's moves in reality.[1] However, the game showed that signaling the communists via differing levels of military aggression was unworkable because hostilities spiraled upwards.[15]

Sigma I-65
Main article: Sigma I-65 war game
Sigma I-65 was held in May 1965. Players on both Blue and Red Teams were lower level officials, while higher ranking advisors set policy for their teams. Little is known about this simulation.[2]

Sigma II-65
Main article: Sigma II-65 war game
Sigma II-65 was held by the Joint Chiefs of Staff between 26 July and 5 August 1965.[16] On 5 August 1965, General Maxwell Taylor predicted that the communists being fought in Vietnam would be defeated by year's end.[17] The Sigma II-65 final report was issued on 20 August.[2]
The Sigma II-65 war game's simulated results contradicted General William Westmoreland's strategy of attrition warfare as being capable of ending the war. As a result, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara began to doubt the general's expertise.[18]

Sigma I-66
Main article: Sigma I-66 war game
Sigma I-66 was staged in September 1966. Its focus was managing de-escalation of the war if the communists were willing to begin negotiating instead of fighting.[19]

Sigma II-66
Main article: Sigma II-66 war game
Sigma II-66 differed in that it was played to explore the effects of an outbreak of peace in Vietnam. It was based on the concept that the Vietnam War would dwindle away into defeat for the communists. To end the game, Ho Chi Minh made a secret offer to the U.S. to end hostilities. His requested quid pro quo was an end to the bombing campaign, withdrawal of U.S. troops from the south, and free elections there. By game's end, the Viet Cong were deemed the winners.[20]

Sigma I-67 & Sigma II-67
Main article: Sigma I-67 and II-67 war games
Both these Sigma war games were staged between 27 November and 7 December 1967. Their focus was on settling the war.[21]

War game parallels with reality
See also: Operation Lam Son 719
Sigma's game play was realistic enough that several plays would be replicated by actual events:
Sigma I-64 began on an imaginary 15 June 1964 with the capture of an American pilot.[22] As Deputy United States Secretary of State Seymour Weiss critiqued Sigma I-64: "The eventual capture of a US airman is a high probability and would give 'hard' evidence of US involvement...."[1] Coincidentally, in reality it turned out that U.S. Navy pilot Charles Frederick Klusmann was actually shot down and captured in the Kingdom of Laos on 6 June 1964.[23]
In Sigma II-64, it was predicted that General Nguyen Khanh would be pressured out of office on 1 April 1965. In real life, anti-Khanh riots broke out in November 1964, and he fled from his nation in February 1965.[22]
Sigma II-64 also predicted that the communists would parry American air power by bombarding airfields. When the real 1 November 1964 arrived, the Viet Cong shelled airfields at Danang and Bien Hoa for the first time, destroying six Martin B-57 Canberras.[22]
The proposed introduction of American infantry on 26 February 1965 per Sigma II-64 really happened on 8 March 1965 when U.S. Marines landed at Danang. In both the simulation and the reality, the U.S. aim was defense of its air assets.[22]
French President Charles de Gaulle called for the United States withdrawal from Vietnam in September 1966.[22]
Another element of the Sigma II-64 scenario was a deadly ambush of an American battalion near Tchephone that inflicted heavy casualties. In actuality, South Vietnamese troops during Operation Lam Son 719 in 1971 would suffer heavy casualties near Tchepone.[22]
Haiphong harbor was mined in May 1972.[22]
Prominent military historian H. R. McMaster terms the Sigma war games results as "eerily prophetic".[24]
Click to expand...
Source: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Sigma_war_games


Regards
Pioneer
 
edwest4 said:
Thank you. But this has nothing to do with the Kennedy administration.
Click to expand...
You asked for references about it.
Once you have them, it doesn't matter.

You asked several times (in your post) about sources.
What about your own ones (to be witness of that times doesn't make any reference of sort)?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
archipeppe said:
You asked for references about it.
Once you have them, it doesn't matter.

You asked several times (in your post) about sources.
What about your own ones (to be witness of that times doesn't make any reference of sort)?
Click to expand...

I referred to the book by L. Fletcher Prouty. Colonel Prouty worked in the Pentagon during the period. The title: JFK. The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. It contains all the relevant facts. If you have any specific questions, let me know.
 
edwest4 said:
This is fiction. i noticed a few facts but very few.
Click to expand...
This is BBC, is an article. You could agree or not but it is not fiction.

edwest4 said:
JFK. The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.
Click to expand...
This is fiction or "very personal" view of History at best.

Serious historians regarded such a book more or less like a conspiracy theorist's fantasy.
When I asked for reference I was meaning real historical documentation or research paper made by real historians not by "Colonel X"....

claremontreviewofbooks.com

The JFK Conspiracy Conspiracy - Claremont Review of Books

An examination of JFK conspiracy theories
claremontreviewofbooks.com claremontreviewofbooks.com
 
archipeppe said:
You asked for references about it.
Once you have them, it doesn't matter.

You asked several times (in your post) about sources.
What about your own ones (to be witness of that times doesn't make any reference of sort)?
Click to expand...

archipeppe said:
This is BBC, is an article. You could agree or not but it is not fiction.


This is fiction or "very personal" view of History at best.

Serious historians regarded such a book more or less like a conspiracy theorist's fantasy.
When I asked for reference I was meaning real historical documentation or research paper made by real historians not by "Colonel X"....

claremontreviewofbooks.com

The JFK Conspiracy Conspiracy - Claremont Review of Books

An examination of JFK conspiracy theories
claremontreviewofbooks.com claremontreviewofbooks.com
Click to expand...

I cannot reply to you. You appear to be only interested in sources that agree with you.
 
edwest4 said:
I cannot reply to you. You appear to be only interested in sources that agree with you.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in History treated as reasearch matter with historical methodologies, with multiple reliable sources.

You are interested on only one source that accords with your own vision on policy and life.

Unfortunately, we don't share the same vision nor speak the same language.
Too bad....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom