WI: Truman Killed in 1950?

As some of you may know, it's my birthday today. I decided in honor of it to read up on different things that happend today. One of them was an assassination attempt on Truman in 1950 by Puerto Rican nationalists. The attempt was poorly planned to begin with, and they failed.

But what if it succeeded? Let's say the attempt was planned and organized well enough to manage to kill the president. How will the country handle the loss of Truman? How will Alben Brakley do as President? What will happen to Puerto Rico in the aftermath?
 
I'm not sure Alben Barkley would actually run in '52, but maybe. He was having heart problems. I'm not sure how much better he'd do against Ike.
 
Here's my rough idea for this PoD:

99 Red Balloons
Torresola successfully assassinates President Truman in September 1950; his successor falls ill in a matter of months. Unable to get authorization either way, the JCS, in April 1951, give MacArthur the authority to use nuclear weapons. He does so, and the face of warfare and American democracy is changed forever. Oh, and Mac is elected President 1952, not to mention the fate of Puerto Rico.
 
Rather unlikely considering that most of the JCS hated Mac's guts.

The question though isn't "What did the JCS think of MacArthur?", but "Would they have been able to push back against the logic of a nuclear strike without a functioning Presidency to guide them?" Remember, Truman himself found himself seriously weighing the option at one point, to a certain extent being dissuaded by larger diplomatic concerns (eg British and French objections) that the military may not have been able to effectively take into account.
 
Here's my rough idea for this PoD:

99 Red Balloons
Torresola successfully assassinates President Truman in September 1950; his successor falls ill in a matter of months. Unable to get authorization either way, the JCS, in April 1951, give MacArthur the authority to use nuclear weapons. He does so, and the face of warfare and American democracy is changed forever. Oh, and Mac is elected President 1952, not to mention the fate of Puerto Rico.

This is a very good example of an idea that tries to move a timeline in an obviously implausible direction. Barkley is going to die, probably in less than three months, and Rayburn is going to be in charge.
 
This is a very good example of an idea that tries to move a timeline in an obviously implausible direction. Barkley is going to die, probably in less than three months, and Rayburn is going to be in charge.

Not sure how Barkley becoming disabled, as opposed to dying outright, is implausible. And, absent the 25th Amendment, if Rayburn (or anyone else) is to functionally take over, Barkley would have to either die or resign; if he just has an incapacitating stroke, then my scenario, I believe, would be far from implausible...
 
Not sure how Barkley becoming disabled, as opposed to dying outright, is implausible. And, absent the 25th Amendment, if Rayburn (or anyone else) is to functionally take over, Barkley would have to either die or resign; if he just has an incapacitating stroke, then my scenario, I believe, would be far from implausible...

The JCS just taking over the war effort from civilian leadership and giving nukes to MacArthur is far from plausible.
 
The JCS just taking over the war effort from civilian leadership and giving nukes to MacArthur is far from plausible.

But what civilian leadership? John Steelman? I actually don't know who they'd consult with in this scenario, or what such a person's inclinations would be. But again, whatever the JCS might have thought of Mac, his idea for nuclear strikes against China were seriously considered.
 
By April 1951 the Chinese had been pushed back out of Seoul.

The time for deployment of nukes (and when they were requested) was January 1951. No-one's going to authorise nukes in April when the Chinese are being smacked backwards.
 
But what civilian leadership? John Steelman? I actually don't know who they'd consult with in this scenario, or what such a person's inclinations would be. But again, whatever the JCS might have thought of Mac, his idea for nuclear strikes against China were seriously considered.
Barkley wouldn't try to cling to power, and if he was unable to do anything, Rayburn would take it, though he wouldn't want to.

His idea for nuclear strikes against China were seriously considered, but not by Truman, Barkley or Rayburn. All of them had more sense than that.

Also, Truman was his own chief of staff, John Steelman was retroactively given that title because it's what his job evolved into. But he was never chief of staff as we know it today.
 
The time for deployment of nukes (and when they were requested) was January 1951. No-one's going to authorise nukes in April when the Chinese are being smacked backwards.

Ah good catch, and thanks :)

Barkley wouldn't try to cling to power, and if he was unable to do anything, Rayburn would take it, though he wouldn't want to.

Supposing he tries to stick with the job just long enough to give him a stroke, putting him in a coma? As long as he's in said coma, how can he resign? Unless he decides, having been elected VP, that he doesn't even want to attempt to perform the duties his office asks of him, I'd say this is well within the realm of plausibility.

His idea for nuclear strikes against China were seriously considered, but not by Truman, Barkley or Rayburn. All of them had more sense than that.

Now see, I recall reading that Truman himself had seriously weighed Mac's proposal before (vigorously, and unambiguously) rejecting it -- or at least, seriously enough that British and French governments were given some genuine credit for dissuading him. But if you're sources say otherwise, I'll be happy to concede the point.

Also, Truman was his own chief of staff, John Steelman was retroactively given that title because it's what his job evolved into. But he was never chief of staff as we know it today.

Ah, I thought so -- then that's just further evidence for my theory that if Barkley were indisposed, to either govern or resign, but not dead, then there would not be a clear civian commander of the Executive in place.
 
There are a lot of things that could happen in this situation, especially regarding the Korean War as a great deal occurred from September-December 1950.

A few thoughts

-Barkley is going to be unable to campaign due to his ascension to the Presidency. Will the sympathy vote make up for his lack of campaigning in the 1950 Mid-term elections? Tough to say, worst case scenario: Democrats lose a few more seats but maintain their majorities in both houses.

-Barkley's health isn't the greatest, this could have an impact on how he views foreign policy. I think MacArthur might also try to exert his power even more so to try and determine the course of the war. Obviously, Barkley's going to have to establish who's boss. What if, while meeting with MacArthur, Barkley reacts favorably to halting the advance at the narrow portion of the Northern Korean Peninsula as the British proposed? MacArthur is furious leading to a falling out between the two men. Under such a scenario we might see a negotiated end to the Korean War, only this time with a much smaller DPRK basically being a puppet of the PRC.
 
Another thing that should be remembered is that the assassination (IOTL, attempt) was just a week after China's People's Volunteer Army had begun the First Phase Campaign. Given the circumstances, I can plausibly see a fresh Barkley decided to make the preliminary moving of nuclear weapons outside the continental US to a naval base like Guam. (No, he's still not going to let them anywhere near MacArthur's chain of command, at least not unless things are desperate -- but it'll make the decision in January that much easier when the Presidency is incapacitated.)
 
I'll just add that Mac's reputation (in the military) after the Chinese got involved got badly hurt - especially after he discounted the chances of them getting involved. He's no longer the emperor he was before. The odds are very good that who-ever is in charge is going to want to see him replaced. And there's no-one in the JCS who will speak up for him.
 
I'll just add that Mac's reputation (in the military) after the Chinese got involved got badly hurt - especially after he discounted the chances of them getting involved. He's no longer the emperor he was before. The odds are very good that who-ever is in charge is going to want to see him replaced. And there's no-one in the JCS who will speak up for him.

Yes, but -- again -- just because MacArthur is hated by military leadership, doesn't mean the logic of forcing China out of Korea with nuclear strikes wasn't getting serious consideration, even by those who now hated his guts. In the months following Chinese entry, there was a lot of "Yes he's now gotten us into this fucking mess, and what he's suggesting seems crazy, but what exactly is the alternative?" going around. It wasn't really until April 1951 (or thereabouts), though, the consensus had been established that nukes weren't an option.
 
The main thing that is going to prevent nukes being deployed no matter how desperate things get is that there were comparitively few of them available.

The USAF didn't have a very good picture of the Soviet Union's internal warmaking infrastructure. This wouldn't happen until after the U-2 flights started bring back results. Thei way of compensating was to assign a lot of nukes to every city and "hope for the best". I can't see any nukes being released for nebulous targets in China and North Korea when every existing nuke was already spoken for.
 
The main thing that is going to prevent nukes being deployed no matter how desperate things get is that there were comparitively few of them available.

Well, not to belittle the point, but that didn't exactly stop the US from dropping the only two nuclear weapons in existence on Japan, four days apart from each other no less. Now if you want to argue that the US Government would never reach the level of felt desperation needed, that was present in the war with Japan, that would be one thing -- but it's not a matter of "no matter what".

Now, when the Truman Administration was discussing Mac's nuclear plan, there were a number of reasons given for not doing it (my favorite was "Dammit, I'm not going down in history as the President who nuked two Asian countries!"), but AIUI the idea that dropping the bomb on Chinese cities would be a waste of the weapon reserves was not one of them.
 
Very very different circumstances between the two situations you've bought up.

Japan was the only possible target for the first atomic bombs. The Soviet Union is the big bad boogyman, is vast and is seemingly hell-bent on world domination. And has nukes of their own. With only a limited number of bombs available, yes it is going to monopolise nuclear attentions.

Politicians may or may not think using them on China/North Korean border is a good idea. The USAF will point out that in the event of a war with the USSR, those weapons all have much more important targets.
 
Politicians may or may not think using them on China/North Korean border is a good idea. The USAF will point out that in the event of a war with the USSR, those weapons all have much more important targets.

One (serious) question, then: Did they raise this particular objection OTL to Truman?
 
Top