During the Korean War General MacArthur had advocated that nuclear weapons be used against China and North Korea in order to win the war. What would the poltical and military consequences have been if the United States had decided to use nuclear weapons on China and North Korea? World War Three as the Soviet Union intervened?
Nuking China over Korea?
- Thread starter Stylesjl
- Start date
The russians already had atomic bombs at that point. It might have gotten nasty.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Definitely- the Chinese already wanted to do something similar, and the Russians had to hold them back. If the US had started the nuclear exchange... Well, you can guess.
World War III probably. But remember at this point in time the USSR's nuclear capabilities are very limited compared to the USA. They don't have good delivery systems and was outnumbered by US nuclear weapons by something like 10 to 1. If a nuclear exchange occurred it would be very one-sided. The USSR might be able to take out some major centres - Berlin, Paris, Seoul, Tokyo, etc and they might use nukes against US ground forces but the US would be able to achieve much more than that. Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Lushun and Guangzhou would be reduced to dust, and most likely Moscow and Leningrad as well.
It's an interesting scenario. Fighting would be bad in Europe and China. The Chinese communist government might collapse, allowing the Nationalists an opportunity to return to power. The Soviet Union might survive, but in a very bad shape. America would probably be victorious. If not, then it'll at least be better off than the communists.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
I do not think that America would come any better out of it than Europe or China. The simple reason is that if it was America that started the exchange, then I feel it is unlikely that the European allies would have stood by them. Perhaps they would have been hit, but America would have lost sum total of it's economy, either way.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
With the Red Army tanks rolling towards West Europe I don't think they would have been very eager to kick the US out. (Regardless of who started it.)
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Thats a myth. MacArthur never wanted to nuke China or any other country. He was very much anti-nuclear weapons and was a major opponent of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
MacArthur wanted to attack Chinese bases in Manchuria (makes sense right?) and this was what eventually got him into hot water with Truman. Plus MacArthur and Truman never got along well before the Korean war. One of the reasons was MacArthur's opposition to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
True- post-war Europe was in no position to defend itself against the USSR, so it was either going along with the US or being conquered.
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
On the other hand, if a nuclear exchange is started, then it is likely that major Soviet cities, ports, etc are reduced to ruin. In order to invade you need a plan, and without a high command you can't have a plan. At least, not a good one.
Italian Celtic
real european
Americans in the early 50s haven't the miltary capacity to destroy all soviet city and the public opinion would never have accepted a nuclear strike on a country(as china) which haven't nukes
besides why should america have had to attach china with nukes????
America had no operational nukes at all when the Korean War started. The bombs were lying in bits and pieces all over the place and needed assemblage, which would take about a year or so (get the parts, materials etc). Same with the Soviets more or less.
In the aftermath, the Americans finally got serious and started to stock up on operational nukes on a largish scale. Same with the Soviets.
At least, that's what I read from somewhere I think.
In the aftermath, the Americans finally got serious and started to stock up on operational nukes on a largish scale. Same with the Soviets.
At least, that's what I read from somewhere I think.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
You realize of course that the ICBM does not exist at this point, the only method of delivery is by way of a bomb. I think that, if the United States were to have put a nuke on, let's say Harbin, since that's close to the Yalu River, and a semi-reasonable objective if the US were to attempt to advance past the Yalu, that unless the Ruskies went full-out on Europe, land, sea, and air. Otherwise, our boys'd know to have an eye on the sky and could shoot down any nuclear bomber wandering around up there, unless they did something crazy like send in a whole fleet of bombers, with only a few carrying bombs.
holy king
Deity
absurd scenario, i just dont see russia defending china...
Actually the USSR have a lot at stake in China. Consider this:
The main supporter of the Chinese Guomindang between 1925 - 1940s is the Soviet Union.
The main supporter of the Chinese Communist Party between 1949 - 1960 is the Soviet Union.
Notice that the USSR support whoever is in control of the country at the time, regardless of ideology (although as the CCP becomes more powerful it receives more aid from the Soviets since they would nevertheless prefer Mao in charge rather than Chiang).
Back to Korea - WWIII scenario: apart from being a communist country defending China also have a strategic side. China after all is the world's largest country in population and China in anarchy or worse in American control would be a nightmare for the Soviet Union. China directly borders the Soviet Union, and at the time only China and North Korea among those countries bordering the Soviet bloc that remained friendly to Moscow. If China and North Korea fall, then the USSR would be completely surrounded by enemies.
holy king
Deity
this is about the us nuking china with 2-3 nuclear bombs, not occupying it or even change its regime... i dont see a reason for the ussr to incend a world war as reaction...
Well this assuming that China would surrender after the bomb hit like Japan did. Most likely China won't. The USSR would send in troops since it was a direct attack on China which is its main ally at the time and an invasion might would follow soon after.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I think a few directed nuclear hits would not make such a big impact on public opinion as it would have done today. Carpet bombing could be equally destructive, and for the radiation, the bombs were not as deadly as today.
Of course, when humanism evolved in the following decades, it would be a black spot on the American prestige. Maybe, with 2-3 nuclear hits, North Korea would not be North Korea, but part of a united Korea.
Of course, when humanism evolved in the following decades, it would be a black spot on the American prestige. Maybe, with 2-3 nuclear hits, North Korea would not be North Korea, but part of a united Korea.
Captain2
ಠ_ృ
the Soviets weren't idiots, if America nuked China or North Korea they would most likely send troops to kick the Americans out of Asia, the only way troops would be sent to Europe would be if the Europeans would support the American Aggression
if Europe kicked America out, the Soviets wouldn't be in any hurry to open a new front
Alpha Killer II
My avatar is a insigna...
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 940
Well wasn't America and Europe in NATO? but even if Europe and America invade Russia/China/Korea it would land them all in hot water within their own people (thus starting revolts and possible revolution(s)), not to mention how eager Stalin was to start a Nuclear War (while US focused on accurate nukes, Stalin focused on how far the nukes can go/the payload, thus making USSR Nukes about twice as strong as US) but wait, we are talkin about 1950-1953 times, right?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Stalin wanted nothing of the short- after all, Stalin's regime prevented the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean War, despite Chinese demands for their use. Stalin may have been a psychotic butcher, but he wasn't an idiot.
Similar threads
