AHC: Nuclear weapons not taboo in warfare

WW1 never happen. Tensions are simmering but never escalate or a more limited Balkan War is a horrifying example of industrial warfare.

Point is all the European nations need a new "limited valve" for tensions. This slowly leads to a consensus in international politics that allows "colonial wars" and proxy wars without triggering a wider war that would affect the European continent.

The 20s, 30s and 40s are full of fleet actions, limited colonial offensives etc. The arms race continues. Sure, sometimes it is slowed down due to the economy but tanks and the first jet prototypes etc. all were developed at similiar times compared to OTL.

The European nations (Russia too depending on what one defines as European), the USA and Japan all start nuclear weapons programms in the 40s. In India tensions are really boiling over in the late 40s. In the early 50s a massive Indian revolt happens and after some initial victories Britain realizes that the conventional military approach isn't working. Desperate the nuke is used to intimidate the revolution/rebellion and it works for a while.

This breaks the "taboo" of using nukes (that taboo never really developed ITTL) and tatical nukes and strategical nukes are liberally used in colonial conflicts.
What's the point of nuclear weapons in colonial conflicts? They destroy the cities the imperial power wants to occupy. If WMDs are to be used in colonial conflicts, then the imperial power would prefer chemical weapons, so they can kill rebels and the local population while leaving the infrastructure intact (or contaminated but intact, depending on the chemical agent)
 

Anchises

Banned
What's the point of nuclear weapons in colonial conflicts? They destroy the cities the imperial power wants to occupy. If WMDs are to be used in colonial conflicts, then the imperial power would prefer chemical weapons, so they can kill rebels and the local population while leaving the infrastructure intact (or contaminated but intact, depending on the chemical agent)

Depends on the conflict and the colony.

Nuking a city in india to enforce the submission of the rest makes sense from the perspective of a absolutely ruthless atl-Britain. And lets not forget that these kind of conflicts would be about prestige. No one wants to be the first to lose against colonials, so leaving behind a radioactive pile of ash instead of being chased out might make "sense".

I think that nukes would be mostly used on a tactical level though. Maybe some low yield nuclear bombs against rebellious cities. And lets not forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Would a super oppressive colonial power really care about cancer and dangerous doses of radiation if colonial subjects are affected ?
 
Like others have pointed out, its not really a taboo but rather an obvious effect of escalation use of a nuclear weapon represents and I think this is a fundamental flaw in the initial proposal.

Its a practical question. You have to make their use not present an obvious threat to the entire world. The argument the entire way is that an arbitrary limit on what size is acceptable and what isn't does not work. Once one is used its pretty much fair game for the rest of the arsenal regardless of yield and this has pretty much been recognized since both the US and USSR aquired them. Same goes with high lethality chemical and biological weapons. There really isn't much of a distinction made.
 
It's difficult to game that one out, because one could argue that usage of nuclear weapons isn't necessarily morally taboo at all; rather that using one invites retaliation in kind, and having a nuclear bomb dropped on one's own city is not something any nuclear-armed country is prepared to countenance. To create an example - would the USA have dropped the bomb on Hanoi - even if it meant decisive victory in Vietnam - if it meant New York City being destroyed? It's hard to think so, and impossible to imagine any politician arguing in favour of such an outcome. And that's the most benign example I can think of, because MAD doctrine ensured it wouldn't stop there.

As for battlefield nukes, I won't advance an opinion on that; I know sweet Fanny Adams about them.
The only two countries that could nuke New York at that time or China and the USSR. Are any of them willing to trade Moscow or Beijing for New York City? I don't think so and in doing so I'm not suggesting that we should have nukes and I'm just kind of clarifying the way I look at it it's all a trade-off
 
The only two countries that could nuke New York at that time or China and the USSR. Are any of them willing to trade Moscow or Beijing for New York City? I don't think so and in doing so I'm not suggesting that we should have nukes and I'm just kind of clarifying the way I look at it it's all a trade-off
Quite so. But they don't sit still if Hanoi gets nuked, and, just as China and USSR don't want their capitals nuked, neither does the US want NYC (or indeed DC) to bite the nuclear bullet, so it doesn't happen. Unless you can game a scenario wherein Hanoi does get nuked and that scenario ends in a large US city not getting the same. I mean, I'm willing to listen to an alternative scenario but I can't see it.
 
Quite so. But they don't sit still if Hanoi gets nuked, and, just as China and USSR don't want their capitals nuked, neither does the US want NYC (or indeed DC) to bite the nuclear bullet, so it doesn't happen. Unless you can game a scenario wherein Hanoi does get nuked and that scenario ends in a large US city not getting the same. I mean, I'm willing to listen to an alternative scenario but I can't see it.
So you think the Soviets or China would risk a all out nuclear war for Hanoi? I don't see it happening I can see conventional retaliation I can see diplomatic isolation for the u.s. but it goes back to the European issue of will the u.s. trade Washington for London or Paris
 

Ian_W

Banned
So you think the Soviets or China would risk a all out nuclear war for Hanoi? I don't see it happening I can see conventional retaliation I can see diplomatic isolation for the u.s. but it goes back to the European issue of will the u.s. trade Washington for London or Paris

And when US bases in Vietnam go up in a nuclear fireball, taking US troops with them, the response is ...
 
And when US bases in Vietnam go up in a nuclear fireball, taking US troops with them, the response is ...
The US has a very good knowledge of where a bomb was built and who built it. Well I doubt there would be a nuclear response to whichever country did build it the Cold War would get below zero and North Vietnam would be glassed. Not very good outcome and I'm not saying it should be done if that is my you what could happen.
 

Ian_W

Banned
The US has a very good knowledge of where a bomb was built and who built it. Well I doubt there would be a nuclear response to whichever country did build it the Cold War would get below zero and North Vietnam would be glassed. Not very good outcome and I'm not saying it should be done if that is my you what could happen.

You're right, it's a terrible outcome for the US.

Because of the rampant stupidity in attacking Hanoi with nukes, a US division is now unavailable to protect important US interests because it's been nuked in an unimportant war.
 
You're right, it's a terrible outcome for the US.

Because of the rampant stupidity in attacking Hanoi with nukes, a US division is now unavailable to protect important US interests because it's been nuked in an unimportant war.
What makes the difference in a war that makes it important or unimportant?
 

Ian_W

Banned
What makes the difference in a war that makes it important or unimportant?

If the US loses Vietnam, that's a setback.

If the US loses West Germany, France or the UK to a "no nukes" neutralist government, that's a disaster.

And "glassing Hanoi" makes each of those a 50/50 proposition.
 
So you think the Soviets or China would risk a all out nuclear war for Hanoi? I don't see it happening I can see conventional retaliation I can see diplomatic isolation for the u.s. but it goes back to the European issue of will the u.s. trade Washington for London or Paris

Cuba crisis is an example of the soviets being perfectly willing to start a nuclear war over something like that. Loose nuclear policy will lead to an exponentially higher number of incidents like cuba. It will probably lead to cuba going nuclear tbh.
 
Cuba crisis is an example of the soviets being perfectly willing to start a nuclear war over something like that. Loose nuclear policy will lead to an exponentially higher number of incidents like cuba. It will probably lead to cuba going nuclear tbh.
Actually the Cuban Missile Crisis shows that the Russians would do anything to stop nuclear war. Have they and willing to fight a nuclear war that would have been the time
 
Actually the Cuban Missile Crisis shows that the Russians would do anything to stop nuclear war. Have they and willing to fight a nuclear war that would have been the time

But both US and Soviet nuclear doctrines were based on the principle of massive retaliation in the case of a first strike. Which is something I think you're handwaving away.
 
Top