[xerophyte12932]

Is this real?

In his Memoirs, Nixon admitted that the key factor in the decision not to proceed with the nuclear option was that "after all the protests and the Moratorium, American public opinion would be seriously divided by any military escalation of the war."

Then that is concrete proof of nuclear considerations

[1wd]

The quoted part can be found on Google Books in "The Memoirs of Richard Nixon -- By Richard Nixon". The context there does not mention the word "nuclear" though, only "increased force". Some other quotes from there:

"My real concern was that these highly publicized efforts aimed at forcing me to end the war were seriously undermining my behind-the-scenes attempt to do just that."

"What counts is whether the demonstrations, regardless of intention, does in fact give encouragement to Hanoi and thereby presumably prolongs the war."

"If a President - any President - allowed his course to be set by those who demonstrate, he would betray the trust of all the rest. Whatever the issue, to allow government policy to be made in the streets would destroy the democratic process."

"I thought about the irony of this protest for peace. It had, I believed, destroyed whatever small possibility may still have existed of ending the war in 1969."

[xerophyte12932]

These are very interesting considering how they show the xact opposite side of the OP's debate.

I find it very amusing when articles quote someone to support their arguments even though the person actually disagrees with their PoV

[aaron-lebo]

What do you mean is it real? Of course skepticism is real as it should be for all claims about history. The author tells us what Nixon is admitting and to do so uses an out of context quote which at best suggests escalation. That's a low standard for concrete proof.

Actually having pulled up that section of the memoirs, "escalation" is used repeatedly. The nuclear option is never even mentioned (though whether Nixon avoids mentioning this is something else entirely). Furthermore, the author doesn't just assert that Nixon considered nuclear weapons, they assert they are directly responsible for avoiding a nuclear war. Maybe a bit too self-congratulatory and subjective:

What would have been the world’s second nuclear war was averted by our action, though we couldn’t have known it at the time...

more:

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/Referen...

In addition, away from the public eye, Nixon’s negotiation strategy in 1969 consisted primarily of a threat to North Vietnam that if they did not become more conciliatory at the peace table, he would unleash the full fury of American power as they had never seen it. Their deadline was 1 November 1969. Consistent with this, Nixon considered escalating the war in various ways in a proposed assault known as Operation Duck Hook. According to historian Marilyn Young, Duck Hook “explored a new range of options [intended to end the war], including a land invasion of the North, the systematic bombing of dikes so as to destroy the food supply, and the saturation bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong.”

Huh, that does sound like non-nuclear escalation.