William Burr, Jeffrey P. Kimball. Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2015. 448 pp. $39.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-7006-2082-1. Reviewed by Luke A. Nichter Published on H-Diplo (November, 2015) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, The City University of New York) It is difficult to fnd a scholar who studies ten gap between Nixon’s 1968 campaign promise Richard Nixon’s presidency who has not benefited of a secret plan to the end the war and a more from at least one book written by William Burr or thoroughly studied--and secretly taped--period of Jeffrey P. Kimball. Though long-time colleagues, time beginning in 1971. Burr and Kimball’s work up to now they have broken ground separately on is based on hundreds of formerly classified subjects such as the decent interval and madman records as well as interviews--more often than not theories, the Nixon tapes, and the study of Nixon- with those who have been critical of the Nixon era war and diplomacy more generally through White House. It is also supplemented by a release works such as Burr’s The Kissinger Transcripts of primary source records on George Washington (1999) and Kimball’s The Vietnam War Files University’s National Security Archive website.[1] (2004) and Nixon’s Vietnam War (1998). These Long before Nixon’s centerpiece foreign poli‐ works shaped future works, and these volumes on cy achievements during 1972, the opening year of my shelves stand as a reminder that my own his presidency saw him grasping for ideas that work on the Nixon tapes would not have hap‐ might help to quickly solve the Vietnam War and pened without them. fulfill a murky campaign promise. In the midst of In their latest project, Burr and Kimball join his 1968 campaign, Nixon scribbled some short‐ forces to bring us Nixon’s Nuclear Specter: The Se‐ hand thoughts on one of his famous yellow legal cret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the notepads: “what situation will be in January 1969, Vietnam War. The book is much more than initial‐ no one will predict … but after four years of fail‐ ly meets the eye. For a Burr-Kimball aficionado, it ure, it’s time for new leadership to end the war on is part mash-up of previous works and part jour‐ a basis that will win lasting peace in Pacific.” ney into the shadowy world of Nixon’s proto-Viet‐ While these sound like campaign talking points, nam strategy. The book flls an important, forgot‐ Nixon did allude to elements of what became his H-Net Reviews eventual strategies of Vietnamization, triangular While that alone is an important new fnding, diplomacy, and détente: “We failed to train V. Nam there is so much more in this rich book and much to take over fghting.… We failed to put emphasis of it has relevance to contemporary public policy on non military aspects.… Failed diplomatically to discussions. Readers will appreciate the back‐ enlist Soviet[s].”[2] Burr and Kimball’s book is a ground on nuclear diplomacy going back to Harry “what happened next”--the extent to which candi‐ Truman’s administration and the dawn of the date Nixon’s ideas played out in policy in Nixon’s Cold War. Also particularly interesting are chap‐ early presidency. ters dealing with the madman theory, the decent Specifically, Nixon, with the help of national interval theory, and the Nixon Doctrine, each of security adviser Henry Kissinger, hoped that a which are subjects of a growing literature and ac‐ more constructive relationship with the Soviet tive scholarly debate, as well as subjects the au‐ Union would bring to bear greater pressure on thors have written about in the past. In fact, for the North Vietnamese. But Nixon would not ac‐ that reason, these parts of the book feel less cept just any peace terms. According to Soviet am‐ groundbreaking than the rest; the authors do not bassador to the United States Anatoly Dobrynin, add much to what they have written previously. the president emphasized twice that he would These topics are important to understanding “never … accept a humiliating defeat on humiliat‐ Nixon’s approach to Duck Hook and foreign policy ing terms.”[3] The other problem was that US-So‐ making more generally. Burr and Kimball are viet relations were not terribly constructive in right to point out Nixon’s uses (and misuses) of Nixon’s frst year of office. In perhaps the very history, including lessons he learned from the first of what later became known as the “Nixon 1950s while Dwight Eisenhower’s apprentice. A shocks,” in October 1969 the White House issued a consummate consumer of history, Nixon some‐ secret nuclear alert as part of a plan to bomb and times ft the narrative to suit his purpose and de‐ mine Haiphong harbor and the coastline, a plan fend his policies, such as when he invoked Eisen‐ codenamed Operation Duck Hook. Why Nixon did hower and the Korean War to defend his actions this, for what purpose, and what the long-term during the Vietnam War. Is this problem unique consequences were are the central investigative to Nixon? Probably not. And all presidents to questions in Burr and Kimball’s work. some degree utilize a madman approach to mak‐ There is still some debate among scholars ing foreign policy--even these days as the United whether the purpose of the nuclear alert and States faces a resurgent Russian threat.[5] At the Duck Hook was more specifically to coerce the So‐ same time, Burr and Kimball remind us how dan‐ viets into helping end the Vietnam War or more gerous it was for Nixon to have risked escalation generally for the Nixon White House to show dis‐ toward general nuclear war. The threatened use pleasure with the state of US-Soviet relations at of tactical nuclear weapons makes diplomatic dis‐ the time.[4] Burr and Kimball argue that Nixon agreements today seem quaint by comparison. and Kissinger abandoned Duck Hook when it did Burr and Kimball downplay the importance not appear that North Vietnam or the Soviet of the Nixon Doctrine, using the argument that Union planned to concede, as well as due to rising neither Kissinger nor his staff was consulted in domestic resistance to the war following his No‐ advance of Nixon’s informal comments at Guam vember 3 nationally televised speech. Nixon’s during July 1969. However, just as Kissinger and failed gambit to quickly end the Vietnam War his staff were nowhere to be seen at Camp David meant that Nixon and Kissinger were forced to on August 15, 1971, this does not mean we should take a much longer road to peace. downplay the effect of that weekend on the Bret‐ 2 H-Net Reviews ton Woods system. Neither should Kissinger’s ab‐ litical polls, and reports from the feld. Some days sence from Guam negate his importance. they were up and some days they were down. Kissinger’s absence had more to do with Nixon’s But these critiques should not take away from penchant for surprise announcements. Further‐ the contribution that, yet again, William Burr and more, following the latest release of Nixon tapes Jeffrey P. Kimball have made to our understand‐ in August 2013, there is now a total of twenty- ing of Nixon foreign policy. Well written and thor‐ three conversations that substantively discuss oughly researched, Nixon’s Nuclear Specter is a Nixon’s view of the Nixon Doctrine.[6] The quick rich study for scholars of the era, and essential for takeaway from these conversations leaves me those interested in Vietnam, the Nixon era, and with the sense that the Nixon Doctrine was nei‐ the mindset of our 37th president. With the re‐ ther solely about Vietnam nor a truly global doc‐ lease of additional Nixon White House records trine--if such a thing is even possible--but some‐ and tapes we can only hope that the authors con‐ where in between. While Nixon and Kissinger tinue writing, jointly or separately, for many more cared about some parts of the world more than years. others, in these recordings Nixon himself pro‐ Notes vides examples of how the Nixon Doctrine was to have application to foreign policy with Asia, Latin [1]. See “Nixon, Kissinger, and the Madman America, the Middle East, and Europe. Strategy during Vietnam War,” The National Secu‐ rity Archive, May 29, 2015, http:// The decent interval theory also deserves a nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb517-Nixon- more nuanced look, especially now that many Kissinger-and-the-Madman-Strategy-during-Viet‐ more of Nixon’s White House tapes are available nam-War/. for research. Until recently scholars have tended to use the Nixon tapes far too selectively to bolster [2]. Richard M. Nixon Notes, Box 1, July 7, particular viewpoints while ignoring evidence to 1968, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford Uni‐ the contrary. Based on my own work with the versity, Stanford, CA. Nixon tapes that have touched on this subject, I [3]. David C. Geyer and Douglas E. Selvage, would suggest that the picture is more complicat‐ eds., Soviet-American Relations: The Détente ed. Too much reliance on any single explanation Years, 1969-1972 (Washington, DC: US Department can result in overly simplistic conclusions. There of State), 90-97. are days on the tapes that suggest that the decent [4]. See William Burr and Jeffrey Kimball, interval theory does not adequately explain Nixon “Nixon’s Nuclear Ploy,” Bulletin of the Atomic Sci‐ and Kissinger’s frustrated attitude; at times they entists 59, no.