Washington, June 1, 1965, 7:57 p.m.

2769. To Ambassadors Taylor and Johnson only from Under Secretary. We have now reached a point in planning for successive Rolling Thunder operations where we must be clear as to precisely what we are trying to do.

In broad terms, there are two possible approaches to the Vietnamese struggle:

I. The major premise of the first approach is that the war must be won in the South. Under this approach, airstrikes in the North should be regarded as ancillary to our operations in the principal theater. Such air strikes should be designed to achieve three purposes:

II. The second approach places much greater emphasis on the total contribution of the air attacks in the North to the ultimate decision. Under this approach our air offensive would so be designed as to impose increasing pressure on the North Vietnamese until they stopped their action against the South even though we might not be winning the war in the South.

The distinction between these two approaches has direct relevance to the conduct of the air offensive. Since, under the first approach, it is assumed that the war must ultimately be decided in the South, we should avoid those North Vietnamese targets (such as those in the Hanoi-Haiphong area) that would be most likely to trigger a greater Chinese and Soviet intervention. If, as suggested in Embtel 768, (2) the tonic effect of bombing on South Viet-Nam morale is wearing off, do you believe that this effect would be heightened by intensifying the bombing of North Viet-Nam even though it
might bring a larger Chinese and Soviet involvement?

If on the other hand, we accept the logic of the second proposal, we should presumably be prepared to assume greater risks of Chinese and Soviet involvement in an effort to persuade Hanoi to stop. This means that we might logically proceed, within the relatively near future, to bomb the military installations in the Hanoi-Haiphong area. Such an action would seek to achieve the ultimate US objective without the need to depend on victory in the South which would make the risks of a greater Moscow-Peiping involvement worth assuming.

The relevance of all this to the present situation is obvious. Action against NVN by US-GVN forces has now reached a critical point. We must decide whether to proceed on one of the three following courses:

The first is to continue progressively to move northward in our air attacks, recognizing that any further movement nearer the Hanoi-Haiphong area poses grave danger of a serious encounter with MIGs that could draw us into attacks on MIG bases and SAM sites and the attendant possibility of greater Chinese and Russian involvement. In fact, the Rolling Thunder operations, for several weeks, have been in areas where the MIGs might easily have engaged. Their failure to do so (except once) may well be because they are waiting for the early activation of the SAM sites. Attacks on Haiphong and Hanoi could be expected to offer the same dangers as strikes on the MIG bases.

A second possibility is to move northward but keep far enough west of the Hanoi-Haiphong area to avoid the range of the SAMs. This would be on the assumption--not yet proven--that this course would offer less danger of escalation. We would like your comments on the validity of this assumption. Would the Chinese permit us to approach nearer their territory without reacting?

A third possibility is to expand the present rules to include industrial and other non-military targets that would not entail high civilian casualty rates. This course would permit a continuation of bombing south of the 20th Parallel without providing reactions appreciably different from attacks on the present target systems.

In order to make these decisions we need your answers to the following questions:

Question of IL-28s is being given separate study here.

Rusk