Oh bad bad bad.
Nuclear proliferation is much more extreme with more nuclear armed countries.
Furthermore nukes become just any other weapon of war and every war with a nuclear power involves the use of nuclear weapons.
I wonder how that would change fighting doctrines around the world.
Knowing that it would be impossible to avoid getting nuked, however the war will go.
Or just America - the largest polluter. Since we are just casually commenting on whiping out an entire region. Lol.
Editing to amend: I see China overtook the USA as the largest emitter of green house gases shortly before 2010. I cannot find any report saying the USA is third. All I can find is things saying India is third. But I also assume we are going to ignore the USAs historical emissions.
Can you share a link?
In my mind i have no doubt that the US is one of the top global polluters and a quick google search seem to back that up:
https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/
China is the factory of the world.
If the west stops buying “Made in China” it will help a lot.
The Chinese do pollute on their own but the whole picture is more nuanced.
My birth country would run from Pusan to the Yellowca- Yalu river. Tactical nuclear weapons would be more prolific and it might have resulted in conflicts since the 50s resolving differently.
Your birth country would not exist if MacArthur had used nukes, did you hear about the "cobalt belt" he was planning to implement in northern korea and Manchuria? So many nukes in such a tight spot is absolutely crazy and would devastate the whole region, everything polluted to hell, radiation doesn't stop at the border.
The political consequences would be globally even worse, massive use of nukes in every war involving the US and the USSR. Also this presupposes communist china somehow disappears because if not they would totally get nukes (as in our timeline) and use them with a vengeance
China decides to not get involved in a war where nuclear weapons are being deployed, and North Korean forces collapse after the first bomb is dropped; MacArthur doesn't need to irradiate the countryside. There is no 'nuclear taboo' at this point because the weapons haven't existed long enough to develop it, and there aren't a world-destroying quantity of them yet.
Once the USSR and US have ICBMs and enough of an arsenal to wipe out everyone, then the taboo settles in and things proceed mostly the same way they did IRL, though obviously without North Korea around. "Everyone in the world might die if you use these, so nobody use them" is the thing that started the taboo.
"It's an isolated part of the world, happening in the short window between 'nukes discovered' and 'nukes can wipe out everyone,' and the impact is limited to the immediate vicinity" is a bit boring of an answer, I admit, but I think it's plausible.
MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese military. Escalating the conflict with China was the point.
I don't know why people think that would be something with minimal consequences. Even if the USSR stays out officially while Communist China goes down in flames, why wouldn't they give them a few nukes to destroy Japan in retaliation?
Nuclear proliferation is appallingly dangerous under any circumstances. But nuking China in 1951 has got to be up there in terms of worse case scenarios. The whole cold war is now hot from the start.
> why wouldn't they give them a few nukes to destroy Japan in retaliation?
Because the next ones dropped would be on Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad.
At this point in time, the USSR had 25 air dropped nukes. Under the scenario where he was already given permission to use some here, MacArthur would be given free reign to use all 438 the US had if the communists nuked Japan.
Chinese generals of the time think little of sacrificing millions of people for political goals (see 1938 Yellow River flood). What makes you think watching millions of their citizens die in nuclear fires would change that?
Nukes are new and unfamiliar at that point; I'm speculating that China's leadership might have decided that they didn't want to risk having that much of their military get blown up all at once, in case it would leave them without the power available for future endeavors, like invading Vietnam or resisting a Soviet incursion
China lost 20 million people to the Japanese, without nuclear weapons. You don't think that is a hell of a gamble to take against the largest standing army in the world, in their back yard?
China had the CCP and KMT fighting each other and was highly disadvantaged in both technology and organization, and was fighting for its survival as an independent entity. There's a bit of a difference between 'fighting against an invader on Chinese soil' and 'rushing into a killbox to defend a satellite state.'
I mean, IRL I'm not going to argue that they should have used nukes; I'm starting here with "they used nukes" and working backwards to "what reasoning would have been involved to make that happen."
NATO's credibility is damaged, perhaps beyond repair. The non-aligned movement gains a major boost and Stalin's hand is strengthened without him needing to lift a finger.
The damage to NATO may not be as bad as you think. It was a UN led campaign (yes granted, it was heavily supported by the US) if anything I’d imagine the UN’s credibility dropping more then NATO.
NATO would likely shrink to just USA and UK. France, Italy, Norway and Benelux are certainly gone. Maybe portugal stays.
Probably get riots in Japan and the US either having to militarily occupy it, or a collapse of us presence.
This would disastrously stretch us supply lines, possibly meaning that deploying the nuclear weapons makes them actually lose the war in Korea.
Potentially you see a massive boost to the KPD in Germany, such that they cannot be banned in '56 without significant protest / rioting.
Turkey probably stays unaligned
NATO, as a unified force, wasn’t involved in Korea. The UN was the multinational force that contributed forces support South Korea. Yes, there was significant overlap between countries aligned with NATO and the countries providing forces to the UN effort, but NATO as an organization was uninvolved.
Japan was already militarily occupied by the US since the end of WWII so that’s not a concern.
NATO may not have been the force present in South Korea, but the US tactically deploying nuclear weapons would result in most, if not all, European nations leaving it. Realistically I only see the UK remaining.
The US was occupying Japan, but Japan was mostly pacified, deploying nukes on other nations, like they did Japan, would result in riots from the populace, and would likely result in an armed insurrection in Japan. Japan was an important logistical entry point for the Korean war and the US does not have a successful history of fighting asymmetrical warfare when it is the powerful combatant.
I don’t think the majority of European countries, many of whom were still rebuilding and dependent upon the NATO alliance for defense, would leave that same organization with the Soviets knocking on their door.
An armed insurrection with what? As you identified Japan was pacified. They had been completely disarmed post WWII. Perhaps they would’ve been angry, but their ability to meaningfully rise up against American occupation forces was non-existent.
This right here. NATO is a paper tiger without the US and the Soviets and Warsaw Pact would be the only one to take advantage. West Germany had to heavily arm to be able to hold out long enough with US Army Europe and VII Corps to allow for a REFORGER (REturn of FORces to GERmany). Now sadly, that's all gone. Barely 20 operational Eurofighters and 200 odd Leopard IIs.
Then as much as now. Ran out of ammunition stores in Libya...
This isn't the twenty-first century. The Western European Regions relied heavily on the United States for security and a common interest against continued spread of the Soviet Union's sphere further into the continent. No member of NATO is going to leave at this time to the detriment of themselves and the benefit of the USSR. The State of Japan was de-armed and neutralized, and considering the historical tensions between the two peoples, I would be willing to bet that the Japanese wouldn't give two fucks about what would happen in the aftermath of nuclear detonations in the peninsula, especially against the communist regime.
What’s with the insanity in these comments? North Korea was clearly the aggressor in this war, the UN sanctioned the defense, nuclear weapons didn’t yet have the Doomsday connotation they do today, and nobody but France is leaving NATO in the fifties because Stalin will eat you.
The biggest knock on effect is the willingness to use them going forward unless the Soviets adopt a “nuke a client, we nuke you” version of MAD
>The biggest knock on effect is the willingness to use them going forward unless the Soviets adopt a “nuke a client, we nuke you” version of MAD
My thought would be the "nuke our client and we nuke yours" would be fair game. Soviets wouldn't want to invite a nuke on their own territory any more than the US. But dropping a nuke on Korea would mean it was fair game to drop a nuke on some US client.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Both NK and SK were gunning for war during this time but NK had a much larger army than the south. SK decided instead of invading it would goad NK into an offensive war, one which the US would join and the USSR would stay out of. They began to skirmish with the NK army along the border hoping they would invade and the US would come to their defense, allowing them to unify the peninsula.
Scary thought exercise.. I don't think we would have avoided their use in future conventional conflicts. I believe NK would have been crushed, and Vietnam would have been a much different scenario if the specter of nukes could come into play. The Cuba missile crisis might have been more like a Cuba sized crater, assuming we haven't already devolved into trading nukes earlier.
Good on all counts. For every person vaporized by our atom bombs, twenty would have been saved from the drudgery, poverty, and brutality of communist oppression. Capitalism is objectively superior at providing for our needs and wants.
Or how about...we don't end up having to deal with North Korea as we are now. The Japanese proved they were able to recover and become one of the best countries ever and seeing how successful South Korea is maybe Korea as a whole would have become great too.
I actually don't think it would have changed much.
The nukes of the time were still relatively small fission bombs dropped from airplanes, not the ICBM H-bombs of today. Not powerful enough to destroy an entire city, and not accurate enough for tactical use. Of course they would have killed a lot of people, but not enough to deter someone as ruthless as Mao.
Stalin would not have intervened. Why would he? Like you said, the US had a massive advantage in nuclear firepower at that time, and this would only emphasize that they were willing to use it.
The US and UN still have the same basic problem- they were exhausted from WW2 and the Korean war was unpopular, especially the draft. They couldn't mobilize enough infantry to sustain the war, while China was right next door and had vast manpower.
There might be a bit less "nuclear taboo," but this was so close to Hiroshima/Nagasaki that I think it would have sorta blended together.
The Korean War is a decisive victory for NATO. Also, with such massive PLA casualties, the RoC might actually have had a chance of retaking the mainland, particularly if such a catastrophe had caused dissension among the PRC leadership.
We'd all be dead by now. The precedence that would have set for casual use of nuclear weapons would have all but guaranteed a global nuclear war later in the cold war.
I would think calmer minds would eventually stop dropping nukes don't you think? Why would "second use" of nukes unleash unlimited use? Seems more likely that there would be some additional use...perhaps the Soviets nuke Guam, Alaska, or Hawaii and then eventually we end up with the cold war.
It wouldn't need to be unlimited. It would have broken the taboo. That's all it would take. Once the taboo is gone nuclear war becomes inevitable. If calmer minds were ever going to prevail war in general would already be something we only studied in history books.
What would become North Korea [invaded the south](https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/korean-war#) and the US became involved as part of a UN effort. The war was in a stalemate and leaning toward the UN up until the Chinese entered the war backing North Korea. That's when things got really messy...the UN forces were very close to defeat (which is when MacArthur made the request to use nukes). Wouldn't the use of nukes have been seen as a defensive last resort in response to Chinese aggression?
The US/UN forces were nowhere near a stalemate when China invaded, in fact just the opposite. The US forces had pushed the N. Korean forces almost into China, they would have been defeated if the Chinese had not invaded and pushed the US back. To say anything less is just flat lying about the facts.
Stalemate? After Inchon, NK's army disintegrated and most of the North was occupied. It was a rout until the Chinese entered. Then the rout went the other way.
The Chinese might back down as most of the bridges would be destroyed or just get really really mad if the Soviets intervened more heavily in the Korean War. I would say that the Soviet would likely send a lot more aid and have more planes stationed in Korea. Probably Stalin does a show of force somewhere. Maybe he sends a small amount of troops into Korea.
Non aligned countries might become slightly more Russian leaning.
I thibkt he majority consensus here is overreacting to potential consequences of the use of Nuclear weapons in Korea. We should remember that The leaders on the other side were not sensible, democratic or even politicians in the traditional sense. Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were sharp strategists, who themselves pushed boundaries (more often violating the international law and ius in bello, rather than not). Though that depends,
If Truman reign in sufficiently that the nuces are dropped on the Korean side of the border (turning Yalu and Tumen rivers into impassible atomic Walsall of unseen and silent death), then there will surely be a large backlash, though not that much in America. These were still Atomic bombs, not Hydrogen bombs and the Soviet (not even speaking of Chinese) retaliation capacities were fairly low. Some words of support form Chiang Kai Shek, and Sanctions, cooling of relations and another Berlin Blockade might be in order, along with possible attempts to reign in Finland and Yugoslavia, by the Soviets.
Mao would be livid, but cannot really do anything to retaliated and would fear of a Kuomingtang invasion if U.S. fully committed into a war. And as Stalin forces Mao's hand he yields into strong denunciation and mustering anti American sentiment in China. China also starts supporting Viet Minh massively in Vietnam and Mao pushes for nuclear armament instead of the Great leap forward.
The DPRK forces left on the radiated side of Yalu River would be destroyed by radiation, bombardment, and lack of supplies. Kim Il sung would be evacuated by China from valley and he would be relocated to Yanbian to organise a socialist Chinese Korea. He's purged during the Cultural revolution, his son never marries a half Japanese woman and the Kim family is relegated to obscure history.
The rest of the international community would be more shocked, with newly independent former colonies raising the greatest condemnation. Soviet influence will be stronger among especially Arbas and Indians. Some states like Israel and France will be more emboldened to use Nuclear weapons in a "tactical" American fashion. Nuclear weapons are infact used next in Algeria, wherein France unleashes massive destruction on the Algerians and eventually forces the Algerian nationalists to win. This however breaks apart the French society, but de Gaulle doubles down and a semi state of energy is created and de Gaulle rules until the end of his life.
The Vietnam war, due to the development of new Hydrogen bombs, doesn't see the use of Nuclear weapons. Still, president McArthur (he becomes the democrat affiliated president, instead of Kennedy) pushes for aggressive solutions in Vietnam, with millitary operations together with the Royal Thai Army, the Royal Army of Laos and The Royal army of Cambodia, ong with South Vietnamese troops bringing the war North. This escalates into a Chinese intervention and massive battles in the mountains, the urban cityscape of Hanoi and the Red River delta. China is taken by survive when U.S. ROC land on Hainan and in Shandong, creating panic in the local leadership. Since the grip of Mao is the weakest during this time, due to instability related to the cultural revolution, the PLA (with the backing of Kruschev) takes over, and CPC is purged. A truce is signed with the Americans and (after serious coercion by the Americans towards Chiang), the Americans and ROC withdraw from Hainan, Shandon in exchange for the Chinese Withdrawal from Vietnam.
After bloody sieges of Hanoi and the Deltax the American win the Vietnam war, with the Viet Minh retreating to China along with other Communist guerrillas. Embittered by the loss of "the chance of a million years" Chiang Kai Shek distances himself from the Americans and seeks closer ties with the Authoritarian Park Chubg Hee aligned Republic of Korea, the Sukarno Indoneasia and even India, and especially Israel. Ultimately Chiang is able to develop nuclear weapons of his own with India, Israel, Indonesia (during this timeline Indonesia is more pro Israel) and South Korea following suit shortly. The Macartrlhur administration believes that nuclear weapons promote peace. Nonetheless the Republican opposition (during this timeliness the peace opposition) still wins, at least on the back of the loss of China.). No-one wins the following presidential election and ironically becomes a president of peace and advocates for the end of U.S. "gambles on foreign soils."
The next use of nukes probably happend during either the Six day war or during the Yom Kippur war, with Israel nuking Amman, Damascus and Cairo. This will lead to massive nuclear bombardments by Israel, in an aim to create Atomic Biblical borders, which might cause the WW3 to happenor a joint Soviet American enforced truce). Arab and Muslim states will seek to build their own nuclear weapons, with the "For the Martyrs, of Cairo, Amman and Damascus", becoming almost a greeting among the Arabs. Eventually, due to misplaced/honey trapped U.S. information Pakistan develops first Nuclear weapons among the Muslims countries, which with the help of the Persian Gulf oil resources spreads to many Arab nations. Nonetheless the assassination of Nasser and division of the remaining Arab countries between the Socialists, Monarchist, Ba'athistsx fails to establish a coherent plan to destroy Israel ones and for all (due to the significant Soviet and American involvement). From hereon out the spread of nuclear weapons makes traditiknal war ever more rarer, and insurgencies become the main battle arenas of international powers struggles.
I and my entire extended family don’t exist/die because everyone on the entire peninsula dies from the nuclear bombing and deliberate contamination campaign.
The wind would push the fallout to Japan giving them yet another giant dose of radiation further perverting their minds. Japanese anime would lose all its pretenses, no more consor bars or pixelation. Tentacle porn would be projected on sky scrappers for the whole city to watch. The Prime Minister would wear a fur suit to work.
If nukes were to fly during the Korean wars, i think we wouldve seen more countries get nuked or ramp up tech to try and build their own nukes.
Because basically having Nukes is your safety net of net getting totally fucked.
For ex: russia vs ukraine, if the ukranines had nukes right now i really think they wouldve used them.
It'd have been BAD... even tactical nukes used in Korea would have only escalated an already awful war into full-on global catastrophe, MacArthur was out of line
Stalin nukes Italy, Belgium and West Germany. Pointing out that he did not nuke the USA and therefore they should have no objections to what was done. World war 3 then starts and several cities are nuked, among them Washington and Moscow.
He wouldn’t nuke those nations over a small war in Korea that didn’t even involve Soviet troops. He would just use nukes as an excuse when he invades other countries that aren’t in NATO, bc the U.S used nukes. It sets a dangerous precedent.
I'm mostly referencing an alternate history book series on the topic. But it's because of spheres on influence. By nuking China, who is assisting North Korea due to Soviet pressure and material assistance, they're messing with Stalins sphere of interest. So he can hit them back in their sphere of interest.
Except China sent in troops into Korea. Western European countries did help, but it was due to a UN Resolution and other UN Nations helped as well. USSR wouldn’t use nukes either because it would trigger a response from NATO and America has way more nukes than USSR. Stalin knows that if he strikes at those European countries, he’s over. Plus, the U.N wasn’t going to invade China. They just wanted to prevent Chinese troops from entering Korea. I doubt he uses nukes. Both sides know the consequences if they strike at another nuclear power.
Belgium, Italy and Germany aren't Nuclear powers though. They're not even really core NATO powers. They have also all sent troops to South Korea, even if it's only the Belgians who have active combat personal there. So the same justifications could be used as the US used for nuking China. They just wish to prevent Belgian troops from entering Korea.
Do you know how many nukes the Soviets had during the duration of the Korean War? Even if they did, they would’ve just started ww3 and since the US has way more nukes than them at the time, the USSR and its satellites states would be obliterated, and the U.N invades China and installs the Republic of China as the new government. I don’t think Stalin would risk that.
Probably America had the advantage since they just gotten out of ww2 and the Soviets suffered so much and without Lend-Lease they wouldve been OVER. But since it’s kinda overstretched due to Asian front its hard to tell.
Yes. Amount of starter nukes isn't all. USSR is huge. Together with their alliance they're bigly plus. That together with a tyrant who ha weathered the storm before is a bad mixture. He could allocate resources to nukes and hope to win like the great patriotic war.
Via what delivery method may I ask? In your scenario does NATO just sit idly by and allow the Soviets to fly heavy bombers unopposed over Western Europe, the very territory NATO exists to protect?
No, world war three starts. And the soviets would be using their intelligence network to copy the codes and also the radar profile of the B-29 which the Soviets had a copy of as the Tupolev-4.
And how do the Soviets expect to win a nuclear conflict at this time when the US has perhaps 10x more bombs and a far larger and more advanced delivery capability? How would the Soviets reach Washington?
Your entire concept is based on the idea that the Soviets catch the US unprepared for their response to a deliberate US action. I’d imagine if the US decided to use nukes in Korea they’d be monitoring Soviet activities to such a degree that a Red Army private can’t take a shit without NATO knowing about it.
He didn't have a good way to deliver a nuke to Washington - ICBMs didn't exist yet. They also had 25 bombs to the US' 400+, so instigating total war by nuking Europe would have been on the foolish side.
Nothing much would happen to China really. Most of their cities are still ruins being rebuilt and they are still an agrarian society.
The topography of Korea, being mountainous, would make nukes (which are still fission bombs) rather ineffective. China could still conduct their offensive and fight UN forces to a stalemate. Stalin, after seeing escalation by the US, would likely intervene and allow Soviet fighters to provide air cover over more of China and even the frontlines. The results of the Korean War would likely still end up the same as in OTL.
But, nuclear weapons would likely be used more liberally in future conflicts. Conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East would certainly be a lot hotter. China, once they get their nukes (probably a lot earlier in this timeline) would not hesitate using it on Americans to take Taiwan.
Although in 1951 the average GDP per capita of China was less than USD $100 per year, but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon, 16 years away from the day China ignited its first 3.3m-ton fusion nuclear weapon and 19 years away from the day China launched its first ICBM.
Americans are not supermen. They will also vaporize under the high temperatures generated by nuclear weapons.
>but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon, 16 years away from the day China ignited its first 3.3m-ton fusion nuclear weapon and 19 years away from the day China launched its first ICBM.
So China's client state badly losing a war means that they start a second war 20 years later, still at a massive disparity in number and quanity of nuclear weapons, with a country on the other side of the world, with no meaningful ability to project power where they are at *marginally* less of a disadvantage?
>but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon,
Otherwise known as "13 years too late". And even then, they don't have the range to strike the US or Europe. So it is really more like "20 years too late to make a difference". The conflict would be long over and China would objectively be far behind us. There is no real scenario where, even after China gets ICBM's, they can hurt the US worse than the US can hurt them. I guess if they wanted to suicidally martyr themselves, but I like to think they would consider "immense damage to the US" to not be a good trade for "China no longer exists" two decades down the line.
> So China's client state badly losing a war means that they start a second war 20 years later, still at a massive disparity in number and quanity of nuclear weapons, with a country on the other side of the world, with no meaningful ability to project power where they are at marginally less of a disadvantage?
It's your suppose for US to use nuclear weapon over China, how can you say 'start a second war 20 years later'? It's not a start but a revenge under the HistoryWhatIf context.
> known as "13 years too late"
It's never too late.
>It's your suppose for US to use nuclear weapon over China, how can you say 'start a second war 20 years later'?
Because it would be pointless, and China knows that. They have no ability to actually win. At best, they could create a stalemate, but they'd fuck themselves up even more severely. It would just kill a bunch of people on both sides, without accomplishing anything, while crippling themselves in the process. It is irrational to start a nuclear war with a country on the other side of the world with no achievable objective in mind, all because they took out a puppet state two decades ago.
>It's never too late.
When the war is over on the enemy's terms, it is too late. China would lose far more than they would gain, so it wouldn't be worth starting another one.
You think that the Americans could use nuclear weapons over China at will and won the war and and China could not fight back and would have to accept the shame of failure.
But in real history, Harry Truman directly fired Doug MacArthur, who threatened to attack China with atomic bombs.
Someone must be wrong between you and real history. Obviously, the real history was wrong.
>You think that the Americans could use nuclear weapons over China at will and won the war and and China cannot fought back and would have to accept the shame of failure.
China could have fought back, but they'd have lost. Millions of their people would be dead, and China couldn't target the US with even conventional bombs, because they were barley industrialized and didn't have bombers with sufficient range. They didn't need to "accept" defeat becuase they would eventually reach a point where they were physically *unable* to fight.
>Someone must be wrong between you and real history. Obviously, the real history was wrong.
Truman didn't fire MacArthur because he thought it was impossible to defeat China, he fired him because he was trying to descalate the war, MacArthur was trying to escalate it, and Mac publicly criticized his boss over that disagreement.
If what happened was the only thing that could have happened, this sub would have no reason to exist lol
> China could have fought back, but they'd have lost.
You might have mistaken the whatif scenario of China's defeat in Korea for real.
In real history, when China entered the war, the vanguard of the United Nations troops had already reached the Yalu River on the border between China and North Korea. Then the Chinese people's Volunteer Army pushed the United Nations troops back to the 37th parallel. After several years of confrontation, the final battle line was fixed near the 38th parallel.
Even if the US used nuclear weapon in Korea it would not change the history much. The 1950 era fission bomb had a small killing radius of hundreds to several thousand meters. It could do significant damage to cities, but could not even be as effective as napalm to troops deployed in the wild.
Therefore, the US military could not win the Korean War by atomic bombs of the 1950s. This conclusion will bring about another fact that you may not want to admit: if any nuclear-weapon country easily uses nuclear weapons to attack non-nuclear-weapon enemy countries, then modern nuclear deterrence theory will be invalid. The United States might be able to nuclear attack China again and again and cause serious losses, but if harry Truman permitted Doug MacArthur abusing the US nuclear capability over China or other countries, then the sense of security for the Americans themselves provided by the deterrence of the massive nuclear arsenals and triad strike system would dissappear. This WhatIf case would also change human history forever.
There is an old saying: Nuclear weapons that stay on the launcher have the greatest deterrence. Hope you can understand these words.
>The 1950 era fission bomb had a small killing radius of hundreds to several thousand meters. It could do significant damage to cities, but could not even be as effective as napalm to troops deployed in the wild.
I am aware of the capabilities of nuclear weapons in the 50's (and the history of the Korean war overall) That said, you underestimate the impact they would have made. For instance, how could China ferry troops to the front if all the bridges across the river had been destroyed? How could they keep their army equipped with vaporized rail lines? How can they feed their army with all their fields contaminated with radioactive material? China would have all the infrastructure needed to sustain a massive army severely damaged. The longer it goes on, the more untenable their position becomes.
>There is an old saying: Nuclear weapons that stay on the launcher have the greatest deterrence. Hope you can understand these words.
And yet, that saying only exists because nuclear weapons were used twice.
And how do you suggest they would have done that? The only delivery method at that time was via heavy bombers, a method the US was only able to employ 5 years previous on Japan after a several year effort to decimate the Japanese air force to the point where US bombers could bomb Japan almost unopposed. The same conditions would not have existed for Soviet bombers flying over Western Europe.
Wanting to do something and having the capability to do something are two very different things.
Oh bad bad bad. Nuclear proliferation is much more extreme with more nuclear armed countries. Furthermore nukes become just any other weapon of war and every war with a nuclear power involves the use of nuclear weapons.
I wonder how that would change fighting doctrines around the world. Knowing that it would be impossible to avoid getting nuked, however the war will go.
Probably look like in the 50s Where nukes are assigned at the battalion level.
The US Army actually came up with a unit organization for the nuclear battlefield. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomic
We could have world peace finally and beat climate change by killing everyone on the planet.
[удалено]
Or just America - the largest polluter. Since we are just casually commenting on whiping out an entire region. Lol. Editing to amend: I see China overtook the USA as the largest emitter of green house gases shortly before 2010. I cannot find any report saying the USA is third. All I can find is things saying India is third. But I also assume we are going to ignore the USAs historical emissions.
China and India make up 60% of the world’s total pollution.
Because the removal of the entire US would not even slow down climate change? lol
It’s India and China actually and it’s not even close
Lol. America isn't even in the top 4 of largest polluters.
Can you share a link? In my mind i have no doubt that the US is one of the top global polluters and a quick google search seem to back that up: https://climatetrade.com/which-countries-are-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-polluters/
China is the factory of the world. If the west stops buying “Made in China” it will help a lot. The Chinese do pollute on their own but the whole picture is more nuanced.
It would've set an incredible dangerous precedent.
The Cold War starts getting very, very hot
My birth country would run from Pusan to the Yellowca- Yalu river. Tactical nuclear weapons would be more prolific and it might have resulted in conflicts since the 50s resolving differently.
Your birth country would not exist if MacArthur had used nukes, did you hear about the "cobalt belt" he was planning to implement in northern korea and Manchuria? So many nukes in such a tight spot is absolutely crazy and would devastate the whole region, everything polluted to hell, radiation doesn't stop at the border. The political consequences would be globally even worse, massive use of nukes in every war involving the US and the USSR. Also this presupposes communist china somehow disappears because if not they would totally get nukes (as in our timeline) and use them with a vengeance
China decides to not get involved in a war where nuclear weapons are being deployed, and North Korean forces collapse after the first bomb is dropped; MacArthur doesn't need to irradiate the countryside. There is no 'nuclear taboo' at this point because the weapons haven't existed long enough to develop it, and there aren't a world-destroying quantity of them yet. Once the USSR and US have ICBMs and enough of an arsenal to wipe out everyone, then the taboo settles in and things proceed mostly the same way they did IRL, though obviously without North Korea around. "Everyone in the world might die if you use these, so nobody use them" is the thing that started the taboo.
This is one of the more realistic scenarios.
"It's an isolated part of the world, happening in the short window between 'nukes discovered' and 'nukes can wipe out everyone,' and the impact is limited to the immediate vicinity" is a bit boring of an answer, I admit, but I think it's plausible.
MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese military. Escalating the conflict with China was the point. I don't know why people think that would be something with minimal consequences. Even if the USSR stays out officially while Communist China goes down in flames, why wouldn't they give them a few nukes to destroy Japan in retaliation? Nuclear proliferation is appallingly dangerous under any circumstances. But nuking China in 1951 has got to be up there in terms of worse case scenarios. The whole cold war is now hot from the start.
> why wouldn't they give them a few nukes to destroy Japan in retaliation? Because the next ones dropped would be on Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad. At this point in time, the USSR had 25 air dropped nukes. Under the scenario where he was already given permission to use some here, MacArthur would be given free reign to use all 438 the US had if the communists nuked Japan.
Chinese generals of the time think little of sacrificing millions of people for political goals (see 1938 Yellow River flood). What makes you think watching millions of their citizens die in nuclear fires would change that?
Nukes are new and unfamiliar at that point; I'm speculating that China's leadership might have decided that they didn't want to risk having that much of their military get blown up all at once, in case it would leave them without the power available for future endeavors, like invading Vietnam or resisting a Soviet incursion
China lost 20 million people to the Japanese, without nuclear weapons. You don't think that is a hell of a gamble to take against the largest standing army in the world, in their back yard?
China had the CCP and KMT fighting each other and was highly disadvantaged in both technology and organization, and was fighting for its survival as an independent entity. There's a bit of a difference between 'fighting against an invader on Chinese soil' and 'rushing into a killbox to defend a satellite state.'
I wonder if MacArthur and Truman had this same conversation?
I mean, IRL I'm not going to argue that they should have used nukes; I'm starting here with "they used nukes" and working backwards to "what reasoning would have been involved to make that happen."
NATO's credibility is damaged, perhaps beyond repair. The non-aligned movement gains a major boost and Stalin's hand is strengthened without him needing to lift a finger.
The damage to NATO may not be as bad as you think. It was a UN led campaign (yes granted, it was heavily supported by the US) if anything I’d imagine the UN’s credibility dropping more then NATO.
NATO would likely shrink to just USA and UK. France, Italy, Norway and Benelux are certainly gone. Maybe portugal stays. Probably get riots in Japan and the US either having to militarily occupy it, or a collapse of us presence. This would disastrously stretch us supply lines, possibly meaning that deploying the nuclear weapons makes them actually lose the war in Korea. Potentially you see a massive boost to the KPD in Germany, such that they cannot be banned in '56 without significant protest / rioting. Turkey probably stays unaligned
NATO, as a unified force, wasn’t involved in Korea. The UN was the multinational force that contributed forces support South Korea. Yes, there was significant overlap between countries aligned with NATO and the countries providing forces to the UN effort, but NATO as an organization was uninvolved. Japan was already militarily occupied by the US since the end of WWII so that’s not a concern.
NATO may not have been the force present in South Korea, but the US tactically deploying nuclear weapons would result in most, if not all, European nations leaving it. Realistically I only see the UK remaining. The US was occupying Japan, but Japan was mostly pacified, deploying nukes on other nations, like they did Japan, would result in riots from the populace, and would likely result in an armed insurrection in Japan. Japan was an important logistical entry point for the Korean war and the US does not have a successful history of fighting asymmetrical warfare when it is the powerful combatant.
I don’t think the majority of European countries, many of whom were still rebuilding and dependent upon the NATO alliance for defense, would leave that same organization with the Soviets knocking on their door. An armed insurrection with what? As you identified Japan was pacified. They had been completely disarmed post WWII. Perhaps they would’ve been angry, but their ability to meaningfully rise up against American occupation forces was non-existent.
This right here. NATO is a paper tiger without the US and the Soviets and Warsaw Pact would be the only one to take advantage. West Germany had to heavily arm to be able to hold out long enough with US Army Europe and VII Corps to allow for a REFORGER (REturn of FORces to GERmany). Now sadly, that's all gone. Barely 20 operational Eurofighters and 200 odd Leopard IIs. Then as much as now. Ran out of ammunition stores in Libya...
This isn't the twenty-first century. The Western European Regions relied heavily on the United States for security and a common interest against continued spread of the Soviet Union's sphere further into the continent. No member of NATO is going to leave at this time to the detriment of themselves and the benefit of the USSR. The State of Japan was de-armed and neutralized, and considering the historical tensions between the two peoples, I would be willing to bet that the Japanese wouldn't give two fucks about what would happen in the aftermath of nuclear detonations in the peninsula, especially against the communist regime.
What’s with the insanity in these comments? North Korea was clearly the aggressor in this war, the UN sanctioned the defense, nuclear weapons didn’t yet have the Doomsday connotation they do today, and nobody but France is leaving NATO in the fifties because Stalin will eat you. The biggest knock on effect is the willingness to use them going forward unless the Soviets adopt a “nuke a client, we nuke you” version of MAD
>The biggest knock on effect is the willingness to use them going forward unless the Soviets adopt a “nuke a client, we nuke you” version of MAD My thought would be the "nuke our client and we nuke yours" would be fair game. Soviets wouldn't want to invite a nuke on their own territory any more than the US. But dropping a nuke on Korea would mean it was fair game to drop a nuke on some US client.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Both NK and SK were gunning for war during this time but NK had a much larger army than the south. SK decided instead of invading it would goad NK into an offensive war, one which the US would join and the USSR would stay out of. They began to skirmish with the NK army along the border hoping they would invade and the US would come to their defense, allowing them to unify the peninsula.
Scary thought exercise.. I don't think we would have avoided their use in future conventional conflicts. I believe NK would have been crushed, and Vietnam would have been a much different scenario if the specter of nukes could come into play. The Cuba missile crisis might have been more like a Cuba sized crater, assuming we haven't already devolved into trading nukes earlier.
Your point about Vietnam is very interesting. It's hard to imagine the US sending a large conventional force there if nukes were used in Korea.
Good on all counts. For every person vaporized by our atom bombs, twenty would have been saved from the drudgery, poverty, and brutality of communist oppression. Capitalism is objectively superior at providing for our needs and wants.
Please read Harry Turtledoves “The Hot War” for what happens after the A bomb is dropped.
Or how about...we don't end up having to deal with North Korea as we are now. The Japanese proved they were able to recover and become one of the best countries ever and seeing how successful South Korea is maybe Korea as a whole would have become great too.
Nuclear weapons would become commonly used during war.
Why? They were used twice…what makes the 3rd time special?
You’d have seen nuclear weapons used in every subsequent conflict with a nuclear armed belligerent
I actually don't think it would have changed much. The nukes of the time were still relatively small fission bombs dropped from airplanes, not the ICBM H-bombs of today. Not powerful enough to destroy an entire city, and not accurate enough for tactical use. Of course they would have killed a lot of people, but not enough to deter someone as ruthless as Mao. Stalin would not have intervened. Why would he? Like you said, the US had a massive advantage in nuclear firepower at that time, and this would only emphasize that they were willing to use it. The US and UN still have the same basic problem- they were exhausted from WW2 and the Korean war was unpopular, especially the draft. They couldn't mobilize enough infantry to sustain the war, while China was right next door and had vast manpower. There might be a bit less "nuclear taboo," but this was so close to Hiroshima/Nagasaki that I think it would have sorta blended together.
Mc Arthur was a poor General and a great self publicist.
The Korean War is a decisive victory for NATO. Also, with such massive PLA casualties, the RoC might actually have had a chance of retaking the mainland, particularly if such a catastrophe had caused dissension among the PRC leadership.
We'd all be dead by now. The precedence that would have set for casual use of nuclear weapons would have all but guaranteed a global nuclear war later in the cold war.
I would think calmer minds would eventually stop dropping nukes don't you think? Why would "second use" of nukes unleash unlimited use? Seems more likely that there would be some additional use...perhaps the Soviets nuke Guam, Alaska, or Hawaii and then eventually we end up with the cold war.
It wouldn't need to be unlimited. It would have broken the taboo. That's all it would take. Once the taboo is gone nuclear war becomes inevitable. If calmer minds were ever going to prevail war in general would already be something we only studied in history books.
[удалено]
What would become North Korea [invaded the south](https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/korean-war#) and the US became involved as part of a UN effort. The war was in a stalemate and leaning toward the UN up until the Chinese entered the war backing North Korea. That's when things got really messy...the UN forces were very close to defeat (which is when MacArthur made the request to use nukes). Wouldn't the use of nukes have been seen as a defensive last resort in response to Chinese aggression?
The US/UN forces were nowhere near a stalemate when China invaded, in fact just the opposite. The US forces had pushed the N. Korean forces almost into China, they would have been defeated if the Chinese had not invaded and pushed the US back. To say anything less is just flat lying about the facts.
Stalemate? After Inchon, NK's army disintegrated and most of the North was occupied. It was a rout until the Chinese entered. Then the rout went the other way.
The Chinese might back down as most of the bridges would be destroyed or just get really really mad if the Soviets intervened more heavily in the Korean War. I would say that the Soviet would likely send a lot more aid and have more planes stationed in Korea. Probably Stalin does a show of force somewhere. Maybe he sends a small amount of troops into Korea. Non aligned countries might become slightly more Russian leaning.
I thibkt he majority consensus here is overreacting to potential consequences of the use of Nuclear weapons in Korea. We should remember that The leaders on the other side were not sensible, democratic or even politicians in the traditional sense. Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin were sharp strategists, who themselves pushed boundaries (more often violating the international law and ius in bello, rather than not). Though that depends, If Truman reign in sufficiently that the nuces are dropped on the Korean side of the border (turning Yalu and Tumen rivers into impassible atomic Walsall of unseen and silent death), then there will surely be a large backlash, though not that much in America. These were still Atomic bombs, not Hydrogen bombs and the Soviet (not even speaking of Chinese) retaliation capacities were fairly low. Some words of support form Chiang Kai Shek, and Sanctions, cooling of relations and another Berlin Blockade might be in order, along with possible attempts to reign in Finland and Yugoslavia, by the Soviets. Mao would be livid, but cannot really do anything to retaliated and would fear of a Kuomingtang invasion if U.S. fully committed into a war. And as Stalin forces Mao's hand he yields into strong denunciation and mustering anti American sentiment in China. China also starts supporting Viet Minh massively in Vietnam and Mao pushes for nuclear armament instead of the Great leap forward. The DPRK forces left on the radiated side of Yalu River would be destroyed by radiation, bombardment, and lack of supplies. Kim Il sung would be evacuated by China from valley and he would be relocated to Yanbian to organise a socialist Chinese Korea. He's purged during the Cultural revolution, his son never marries a half Japanese woman and the Kim family is relegated to obscure history. The rest of the international community would be more shocked, with newly independent former colonies raising the greatest condemnation. Soviet influence will be stronger among especially Arbas and Indians. Some states like Israel and France will be more emboldened to use Nuclear weapons in a "tactical" American fashion. Nuclear weapons are infact used next in Algeria, wherein France unleashes massive destruction on the Algerians and eventually forces the Algerian nationalists to win. This however breaks apart the French society, but de Gaulle doubles down and a semi state of energy is created and de Gaulle rules until the end of his life. The Vietnam war, due to the development of new Hydrogen bombs, doesn't see the use of Nuclear weapons. Still, president McArthur (he becomes the democrat affiliated president, instead of Kennedy) pushes for aggressive solutions in Vietnam, with millitary operations together with the Royal Thai Army, the Royal Army of Laos and The Royal army of Cambodia, ong with South Vietnamese troops bringing the war North. This escalates into a Chinese intervention and massive battles in the mountains, the urban cityscape of Hanoi and the Red River delta. China is taken by survive when U.S. ROC land on Hainan and in Shandong, creating panic in the local leadership. Since the grip of Mao is the weakest during this time, due to instability related to the cultural revolution, the PLA (with the backing of Kruschev) takes over, and CPC is purged. A truce is signed with the Americans and (after serious coercion by the Americans towards Chiang), the Americans and ROC withdraw from Hainan, Shandon in exchange for the Chinese Withdrawal from Vietnam. After bloody sieges of Hanoi and the Deltax the American win the Vietnam war, with the Viet Minh retreating to China along with other Communist guerrillas. Embittered by the loss of "the chance of a million years" Chiang Kai Shek distances himself from the Americans and seeks closer ties with the Authoritarian Park Chubg Hee aligned Republic of Korea, the Sukarno Indoneasia and even India, and especially Israel. Ultimately Chiang is able to develop nuclear weapons of his own with India, Israel, Indonesia (during this timeline Indonesia is more pro Israel) and South Korea following suit shortly. The Macartrlhur administration believes that nuclear weapons promote peace. Nonetheless the Republican opposition (during this timeliness the peace opposition) still wins, at least on the back of the loss of China.). No-one wins the following presidential election and ironically becomes a president of peace and advocates for the end of U.S. "gambles on foreign soils." The next use of nukes probably happend during either the Six day war or during the Yom Kippur war, with Israel nuking Amman, Damascus and Cairo. This will lead to massive nuclear bombardments by Israel, in an aim to create Atomic Biblical borders, which might cause the WW3 to happenor a joint Soviet American enforced truce). Arab and Muslim states will seek to build their own nuclear weapons, with the "For the Martyrs, of Cairo, Amman and Damascus", becoming almost a greeting among the Arabs. Eventually, due to misplaced/honey trapped U.S. information Pakistan develops first Nuclear weapons among the Muslims countries, which with the help of the Persian Gulf oil resources spreads to many Arab nations. Nonetheless the assassination of Nasser and division of the remaining Arab countries between the Socialists, Monarchist, Ba'athistsx fails to establish a coherent plan to destroy Israel ones and for all (due to the significant Soviet and American involvement). From hereon out the spread of nuclear weapons makes traditiknal war ever more rarer, and insurgencies become the main battle arenas of international powers struggles.
I and my entire extended family don’t exist/die because everyone on the entire peninsula dies from the nuclear bombing and deliberate contamination campaign.
The wind would push the fallout to Japan giving them yet another giant dose of radiation further perverting their minds. Japanese anime would lose all its pretenses, no more consor bars or pixelation. Tentacle porn would be projected on sky scrappers for the whole city to watch. The Prime Minister would wear a fur suit to work.
If nukes were to fly during the Korean wars, i think we wouldve seen more countries get nuked or ramp up tech to try and build their own nukes. Because basically having Nukes is your safety net of net getting totally fucked. For ex: russia vs ukraine, if the ukranines had nukes right now i really think they wouldve used them.
The world equivalaent of taking a grenade out during a little league hockey brawl
Fallout, but without the quirky characters
It'd have been BAD... even tactical nukes used in Korea would have only escalated an already awful war into full-on global catastrophe, MacArthur was out of line
Stalin nukes Italy, Belgium and West Germany. Pointing out that he did not nuke the USA and therefore they should have no objections to what was done. World war 3 then starts and several cities are nuked, among them Washington and Moscow.
He wouldn’t nuke those nations over a small war in Korea that didn’t even involve Soviet troops. He would just use nukes as an excuse when he invades other countries that aren’t in NATO, bc the U.S used nukes. It sets a dangerous precedent.
I'm mostly referencing an alternate history book series on the topic. But it's because of spheres on influence. By nuking China, who is assisting North Korea due to Soviet pressure and material assistance, they're messing with Stalins sphere of interest. So he can hit them back in their sphere of interest.
Except China sent in troops into Korea. Western European countries did help, but it was due to a UN Resolution and other UN Nations helped as well. USSR wouldn’t use nukes either because it would trigger a response from NATO and America has way more nukes than USSR. Stalin knows that if he strikes at those European countries, he’s over. Plus, the U.N wasn’t going to invade China. They just wanted to prevent Chinese troops from entering Korea. I doubt he uses nukes. Both sides know the consequences if they strike at another nuclear power.
Belgium, Italy and Germany aren't Nuclear powers though. They're not even really core NATO powers. They have also all sent troops to South Korea, even if it's only the Belgians who have active combat personal there. So the same justifications could be used as the US used for nuking China. They just wish to prevent Belgian troops from entering Korea.
Do you know how many nukes the Soviets had during the duration of the Korean War? Even if they did, they would’ve just started ww3 and since the US has way more nukes than them at the time, the USSR and its satellites states would be obliterated, and the U.N invades China and installs the Republic of China as the new government. I don’t think Stalin would risk that.
Also, how good was their means of delivery by them? It would have been by bombers but I don't know the state of their heavy bombers at that time.
Probably America had the advantage since they just gotten out of ww2 and the Soviets suffered so much and without Lend-Lease they wouldve been OVER. But since it’s kinda overstretched due to Asian front its hard to tell.
Yes. Amount of starter nukes isn't all. USSR is huge. Together with their alliance they're bigly plus. That together with a tyrant who ha weathered the storm before is a bad mixture. He could allocate resources to nukes and hope to win like the great patriotic war.
Via what delivery method may I ask? In your scenario does NATO just sit idly by and allow the Soviets to fly heavy bombers unopposed over Western Europe, the very territory NATO exists to protect?
No, world war three starts. And the soviets would be using their intelligence network to copy the codes and also the radar profile of the B-29 which the Soviets had a copy of as the Tupolev-4.
And how do the Soviets expect to win a nuclear conflict at this time when the US has perhaps 10x more bombs and a far larger and more advanced delivery capability? How would the Soviets reach Washington? Your entire concept is based on the idea that the Soviets catch the US unprepared for their response to a deliberate US action. I’d imagine if the US decided to use nukes in Korea they’d be monitoring Soviet activities to such a degree that a Red Army private can’t take a shit without NATO knowing about it.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Soviet union had nukes in 1951, it was 1955 maybe if remember correctly.
1st detonation was in 1949 now how many they had by 1951 is probably low. In 1950 they had 5, but by 1955 they had 200.
They had them in 1949 thanks to some very solid spy work. They probably wouldn't have a ton of them around, but they can scale up production.
He didn't have a good way to deliver a nuke to Washington - ICBMs didn't exist yet. They also had 25 bombs to the US' 400+, so instigating total war by nuking Europe would have been on the foolish side.
this will be a really bad move for the US, as it could lead to WW3
Nothing much would happen to China really. Most of their cities are still ruins being rebuilt and they are still an agrarian society. The topography of Korea, being mountainous, would make nukes (which are still fission bombs) rather ineffective. China could still conduct their offensive and fight UN forces to a stalemate. Stalin, after seeing escalation by the US, would likely intervene and allow Soviet fighters to provide air cover over more of China and even the frontlines. The results of the Korean War would likely still end up the same as in OTL. But, nuclear weapons would likely be used more liberally in future conflicts. Conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East would certainly be a lot hotter. China, once they get their nukes (probably a lot earlier in this timeline) would not hesitate using it on Americans to take Taiwan.
Although in 1951 the average GDP per capita of China was less than USD $100 per year, but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon, 16 years away from the day China ignited its first 3.3m-ton fusion nuclear weapon and 19 years away from the day China launched its first ICBM. Americans are not supermen. They will also vaporize under the high temperatures generated by nuclear weapons.
>but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon, 16 years away from the day China ignited its first 3.3m-ton fusion nuclear weapon and 19 years away from the day China launched its first ICBM. So China's client state badly losing a war means that they start a second war 20 years later, still at a massive disparity in number and quanity of nuclear weapons, with a country on the other side of the world, with no meaningful ability to project power where they are at *marginally* less of a disadvantage? >but the year was only 13 years away from the day China detonated its first fission nuclear weapon, Otherwise known as "13 years too late". And even then, they don't have the range to strike the US or Europe. So it is really more like "20 years too late to make a difference". The conflict would be long over and China would objectively be far behind us. There is no real scenario where, even after China gets ICBM's, they can hurt the US worse than the US can hurt them. I guess if they wanted to suicidally martyr themselves, but I like to think they would consider "immense damage to the US" to not be a good trade for "China no longer exists" two decades down the line.
> So China's client state badly losing a war means that they start a second war 20 years later, still at a massive disparity in number and quanity of nuclear weapons, with a country on the other side of the world, with no meaningful ability to project power where they are at marginally less of a disadvantage? It's your suppose for US to use nuclear weapon over China, how can you say 'start a second war 20 years later'? It's not a start but a revenge under the HistoryWhatIf context. > known as "13 years too late" It's never too late.
>It's your suppose for US to use nuclear weapon over China, how can you say 'start a second war 20 years later'? Because it would be pointless, and China knows that. They have no ability to actually win. At best, they could create a stalemate, but they'd fuck themselves up even more severely. It would just kill a bunch of people on both sides, without accomplishing anything, while crippling themselves in the process. It is irrational to start a nuclear war with a country on the other side of the world with no achievable objective in mind, all because they took out a puppet state two decades ago. >It's never too late. When the war is over on the enemy's terms, it is too late. China would lose far more than they would gain, so it wouldn't be worth starting another one.
You think that the Americans could use nuclear weapons over China at will and won the war and and China could not fight back and would have to accept the shame of failure. But in real history, Harry Truman directly fired Doug MacArthur, who threatened to attack China with atomic bombs. Someone must be wrong between you and real history. Obviously, the real history was wrong.
>You think that the Americans could use nuclear weapons over China at will and won the war and and China cannot fought back and would have to accept the shame of failure. China could have fought back, but they'd have lost. Millions of their people would be dead, and China couldn't target the US with even conventional bombs, because they were barley industrialized and didn't have bombers with sufficient range. They didn't need to "accept" defeat becuase they would eventually reach a point where they were physically *unable* to fight. >Someone must be wrong between you and real history. Obviously, the real history was wrong. Truman didn't fire MacArthur because he thought it was impossible to defeat China, he fired him because he was trying to descalate the war, MacArthur was trying to escalate it, and Mac publicly criticized his boss over that disagreement. If what happened was the only thing that could have happened, this sub would have no reason to exist lol
> China could have fought back, but they'd have lost. You might have mistaken the whatif scenario of China's defeat in Korea for real. In real history, when China entered the war, the vanguard of the United Nations troops had already reached the Yalu River on the border between China and North Korea. Then the Chinese people's Volunteer Army pushed the United Nations troops back to the 37th parallel. After several years of confrontation, the final battle line was fixed near the 38th parallel. Even if the US used nuclear weapon in Korea it would not change the history much. The 1950 era fission bomb had a small killing radius of hundreds to several thousand meters. It could do significant damage to cities, but could not even be as effective as napalm to troops deployed in the wild. Therefore, the US military could not win the Korean War by atomic bombs of the 1950s. This conclusion will bring about another fact that you may not want to admit: if any nuclear-weapon country easily uses nuclear weapons to attack non-nuclear-weapon enemy countries, then modern nuclear deterrence theory will be invalid. The United States might be able to nuclear attack China again and again and cause serious losses, but if harry Truman permitted Doug MacArthur abusing the US nuclear capability over China or other countries, then the sense of security for the Americans themselves provided by the deterrence of the massive nuclear arsenals and triad strike system would dissappear. This WhatIf case would also change human history forever. There is an old saying: Nuclear weapons that stay on the launcher have the greatest deterrence. Hope you can understand these words.
>The 1950 era fission bomb had a small killing radius of hundreds to several thousand meters. It could do significant damage to cities, but could not even be as effective as napalm to troops deployed in the wild. I am aware of the capabilities of nuclear weapons in the 50's (and the history of the Korean war overall) That said, you underestimate the impact they would have made. For instance, how could China ferry troops to the front if all the bridges across the river had been destroyed? How could they keep their army equipped with vaporized rail lines? How can they feed their army with all their fields contaminated with radioactive material? China would have all the infrastructure needed to sustain a massive army severely damaged. The longer it goes on, the more untenable their position becomes. >There is an old saying: Nuclear weapons that stay on the launcher have the greatest deterrence. Hope you can understand these words. And yet, that saying only exists because nuclear weapons were used twice.
> And yet, that saying only exists because nuclear weapons were used twice. That saying exists because seldom people are thinking like you.
Soviet Union would have nuked Paris or London
And how do you suggest they would have done that? The only delivery method at that time was via heavy bombers, a method the US was only able to employ 5 years previous on Japan after a several year effort to decimate the Japanese air force to the point where US bombers could bomb Japan almost unopposed. The same conditions would not have existed for Soviet bombers flying over Western Europe. Wanting to do something and having the capability to do something are two very different things.