Nukes used on colonial rebellion
- Thread starter walmart
- Start date
Yuelang
Banned
like US decides to back French and nuke the shit of Vietnam? 
Like what the French want?
what an instant recipe to lost all credibilities toward third world ex-colonial nations, who will flock toward the Soviet bosom in exchange of protection...
You gain one battered, demoralized, and utterly broken colony but lost many potential allies.
Like what the French want?what an instant recipe to lost all credibilities toward third world ex-colonial nations, who will flock toward the Soviet bosom in exchange of protection...
You gain one battered, demoralized, and utterly broken colony but lost many potential allies.
I reckon that would require no prior use by the Americans in WW2. Otherwise they are seen as far too horrific a weapon, without prior usage you get the situation whereby The US is eager to use it's 'new' toy and the political higher ups who would have to acquiesce to its use are unaware (at least to some extent) of its true scale.
I can understand how the Japanese might have surrendered before the Atomic attacks, due to perhaps an earlier Soviet DoW, but I just don't think a US that didn't nuke Japan could get through Korea without pulling the trigger.
Maybe an earlier Soviet assault butterflies away Korea, due to the whole peninsular being Communist occupied. This increases the fear of communism within the US and hardens resolve to support the French in Indochina perhaps with nuclear arms.
That sounds juuuuuuust about plausible, if love someone with more expertise here to flesh that out a bit.
I can understand how the Japanese might have surrendered before the Atomic attacks, due to perhaps an earlier Soviet DoW, but I just don't think a US that didn't nuke Japan could get through Korea without pulling the trigger.
Maybe an earlier Soviet assault butterflies away Korea, due to the whole peninsular being Communist occupied. This increases the fear of communism within the US and hardens resolve to support the French in Indochina perhaps with nuclear arms.
That sounds juuuuuuust about plausible, if love someone with more expertise here to flesh that out a bit.
Ja. In gross generality, the colonial wars didn't have any viable TARGETS for a nuke.
My opinion is that without the nuking of Japan to end WW2, it is very possible the Nuke gets first used in a smaller war (Korea, or against a colony) and this very horrible can of worms gets opened. It probably stops a great deal of decolonialization, though not all of it as Great Britain already lost a great deal of colonies before they got the bomb.
The Only nation who wandet to use tactical nuclear weapon on there Colony was french four republic !
they wanted to hit Vietnamese forces who siege Dien Bien Phu were a french forces Base was located
Lucky, the french had no nuclear weapons and USA refuse to provide that.
but this and Suez crisis let to French nuclear weapon program
count testing of nuclear weapon in colony also ?
see frist french nuke were tested in colony Algeria during there struggle for independents...
they wanted to hit Vietnamese forces who siege Dien Bien Phu were a french forces Base was located
Lucky, the french had no nuclear weapons and USA refuse to provide that.
but this and Suez crisis let to French nuclear weapon program
count testing of nuclear weapon in colony also ?
see frist french nuke were tested in colony Algeria during there struggle for independents...
Draka?
More seriously, make Eisenhower accept Nixon's advice on nuking Dien Bien Phu.
More seriously, make Eisenhower accept Nixon's advice on nuking Dien Bien Phu.
In a timeline without WW-I and WW-II?
Nothing nuclear weapons,but for sure chemical weapons yes.
Without the world wars horrors (especially nazist),rebels would be massacred.
?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27243803
No. If the U.S. did offer the French atomic bombs for use in Vietnam, the French turned down the offer. The French foreign minister of the time, Georges Bidault, did not want to set off atomic bombs at Dien Bien Phu.like US decides to back French and nuke the shit of Vietnam?
Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27243803
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=342634
Here you go folks, we explored this a couple months back
Always interesting to see what happens though.
Basically in colonial wars, most of the city were already held by the colonial powers themselves. The problem was the countryside/mountains/forests which is harder to nuke
Here you go folks, we explored this a couple months back
Always interesting to see what happens though.
Basically in colonial wars, most of the city were already held by the colonial powers themselves. The problem was the countryside/mountains/forests which is harder to nuke
Another problem with nukes is that the fallout doesn't discriminate and can affect your own troops and colonists; and the goal of a colonial power is generally to keep a colony as profiable as possible - a little hard to do with radioactive terrain.
Of course you need to know such things before actually using a nuke, and if it would be the very first use of a nuke, well...
But I still think that political consequences qould be enormous.
Of course you need to know such things before actually using a nuke, and if it would be the very first use of a nuke, well...
But I still think that political consequences qould be enormous.
With a post-WW2 POD it's hard because everyone pretty much fell into one camp or the other during the Cold War, plus the aforementioned lack of targets. But not all colonial wars deal solely with guerrillas. The Sino-Japanese War was arguably a colonial war, and both sides employed conventional armies. WW2 never happens, the Sino-Japanese war drags on, and Japan develops a nuke and drops it on a Nationalist army.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
I don't think it would be best to use on an active colonial rebellion. Rather it would be best to use them after you've written that colony off and evacuated everything and everyone worth doing so. Then you nuke it to discourage your other colonies from revolting, because the same thing would be in store for them if they won
Of course it would take a lot of butterflies for that kind of evil to show up and get access to nukes and colonies, and not have other factors influencing the decision
Of course it would take a lot of butterflies for that kind of evil to show up and get access to nukes and colonies, and not have other factors influencing the decision
What about a Nazi victory TL? I could easily see the Nazis force feeding a rebellious colony a few cans of instant sunshine.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
That requires several extremely implausible things, which is why I did not suggest it
- The Nazi's actually winning
- Them winning in such a manner to have control over overseas colonies
- Them surviving long enough after victory to develop nukes
- Them holding on to multiple colonies long enough to develop nukes
- One of those colonies being able to force them to pull out
- Whoever being in charge being willing to accept the international consequences of using nukes
..................................................................................................
Now that would make for an exciting action, adventure film with camel chases across the desert, crashes, explosions, gun fire, Tauregs rising out of the sand to slit throats, etc!!!!!
Not sure if Tauregs lived in Algeria circa 1950???? But you could import a variety of jihadi mercenaries to spice up the plot.
The key point here is desperate "pied moors" retreating towards the Mediteranean.