Atomic Korea: my first timeline

Well...the first one I feel comfortable posting, at any rate.

Folks, I'm looking for holes in this idea. It's not fully fleshed out by any means, but before I invest in great detail, I want to make sure I'm not missing anything obvious.

=====

In the middle of October, 1950, the Communist Chinese began to infiltrate North Korea from Manchuria, crossing the Yalu River by night. By the time six weeks had passed, four full CCF armies were in North Korea, and were engaged with the 7th Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division in the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir.

An intelligence source inside the Communist Chinese government passed information along concerning the desire of the leadership to involve themselves in the Korean conflict, and the sheer scale of the undertaking.
Overwhelmed by the sheer number of Chinese fighters, the 8th Army began to fall back. President Truman threatened publicly to use atomic bombs against the Chinese army, but the CCF continued to press their advantage, pushing the UN forces back down towards the 38th Parallel.

Unwilling to accept a defeat at the hands of the Communists, and seeing no way to correct the situation with conventional arms, President Truman reluctantly released six retrofitted B-45 Tornado bombers, part of the Backbreaker program that has been intended to be used as a nuclear deterrent against the Soviets, for use in the Korean conflict. These six bombers, retrofitted for use with nuclear weapons, were each equipped with a low-yield Mark 4 atomic bomb from the small stockpile that had been built in the years since the end of the Second World War.

Sent in high, and with no supporting aircraft, the pilots of the B-45s were protected by a series of feints and unexpected attacks against positions that were nominally militarily effective, but which drew the Communist air forces away from the anticipated bombing sites. Losses were high, but everyone understood that, if the main mission was successful, the risks were worth it to end the conflict before the Chinese could push the United Nations forces out of Korea entirely.

The small, tactical bombs were each set to detonate at an altitude of three hundred yards, and carried the impact of around a thousand tons of TNT. Four of the bombs were centered on CCF troop concentrations, while two additional bombs were targeted on supply depots north of the line of battle.

Each explosion caused enormous damage, obliterating everything in a half-mile radius of the blast, with heat waves and their attendant fires causing further damage away from the epicenter. Casualties among the North Korean and Communist Chinese forces were enormous, with some figures going as high as two hundred thousand soldiers killed either in the immediate explosion or from the wounds they suffered or the fire, heat and radiation damage.

With the six explosions, the pressure against the United Nations forces was immediately removed, and they were able to stop and lick their wounds. The Eighth Army regrouped north of Pyongyang and Wonsan intending to hold there, at the narrowest point in the northern portion of the Korean peninsula as they awaited the slow arrival of reinforcements.

Moments after the detonations had been verified, President Truman went on television to announce what had happened, and to publicly demand the immediate surrender of the North Korean government. The reactions around the world were mixed, but almost universally horrified. Countries that had been allied with the United States reacted with harsh words, but little in the way of actions. The U.S. government was seen by most as too unstable to provoke, as well as still remaining the only buffer against Soviet aggression in Europe. Countries that were not directly allied were more vocal, with calls for censure, and even sanctions from the United Nations. The Soviet Union quickly moved to have the United States forcibly removed from the Security Council, and perhaps from the United Nations entirely, and called for international pressure to try President Truman for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Kim Il-Sung publicly breaks with Communist China, and offers an immediate cease fire and to negotiate for peace. President Truman, intending to use the leverage that nuclear weapons have given him to the fullest extent, demands unconditional surrender, and gets it. Kim is noted for having publicly stood up to Chairman Mao, demanding that he explain just how he would protect Korea from more of these bombs if North Korea were to continue the fight.

The result is a reunified Korea with immensely strong ties to the United States, partly out of gratitude for their sacrifice in the war, and partly in fear of what might become of them were they to be less than fully grateful. The Korean peninsula, much like Japan some six years before, falls under the control of the United States.

=====

Okay, now, be gentle. :)
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Points that stands out:

There is virtually no chance of a B-45 with nuclear capacity in 1950. The aircraft had serious teething issues, and in the post war USAF it had not been a priority until the Korean War began. The program to modify them was then a high priority project IOTL and it was 1952 before the first aircraft was deployed.

The B-45, even a modified one, would not have been able to carry a Mark 4, it would literally have dragged on the tarmac. The B-45 carried the Mark 5 which was introduced in May of 1952 (the same time as the 1st modified B-45s entered service), the Mark 7 which was introduced in July of 1952 or the Mark 8 which entered service in January of 1952.
 
Kim Il Sung is probably the last person who is going to offer an unconditional surrender. His troops... Maybe, but him? No way. I'm not sure if Kim said anything, but recall Castro's quote about destroying Cuba to keep out the USA.
 
Points well taken.

Kim Il Sung is probably the last person who is going to offer an unconditional surrender. His troops... Maybe, but him? No way.
I suppose I could have Kim immolated in the attacks, or otherwise overthrown. I didn't really take into account his intransigence. Given the way his progeny behaves, I guess I should have. :)

The B-45, even a modified one, would not have been able to carry a Mark 4, it would literally have dragged on the tarmac.
Regarding the nuclear capacity of the U.S. in late 1950, early '51, does anyone have any resources on what means would have been used to deliver one of those low-yield, mostly tactical Mark 4's? Or is there a better device in the arsenal?

ETA: Maybe a B-47? They could carry up to 12 tons of bombs, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Points well taken.

I suppose I could have Kim immolated in the attacks, or otherwise overthrown. I didn't really take into account his intransigence. Given the way his progeny behaves, I guess I should have. :)

Regarding the nuclear capacity of the U.S. in late 1950, early '51, does anyone have any resources on what means would have been used to deliver one of those low-yield, mostly tactical Mark 4's? Or is there a better device in the arsenal?

ETA: Maybe a B-47? They could carry up to 12 tons of bombs, IIRC.
B-29 with fighter escort?
 
Regarding the nuclear capacity of the U.S. in late 1950, early '51, does anyone have any resources on what means would have been used to deliver one of those low-yield, mostly tactical Mark 4's? Or is there a better device in the arsenal?

ETA: Maybe a B-47? They could carry up to 12 tons of bombs, IIRC.

B-36, perhaps?
 
THis is only 5 years after the huge bombing campaigns of WWII (of cities!), would people really be that upset about this?

I suspect that five years was enough time for people to begin to see the ramifications of the use of nuclear weapons. I'm not thinking it would make the U.S. a pariah state, but I do see there being general negative reactions, especially amongst those who already see the U.S. in a bullying role.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I suspect that five years was enough time for people to begin to see the ramifications of the use of nuclear weapons. I'm not thinking it would make the U.S. a pariah state, but I do see there being general negative reactions, especially amongst those who already see the U.S. in a bullying role.


You are overlaying the 1950s West with 1990s Western thought. Nuclear weapons and power were not seen as anything close to the boogey man of later years. The world was a very simple place, you were either IN the Communist Bloc (and in most cases trying to come up with a way to get OUT), secretly working to bring your country INTO the Communist Bloc, or scared to DEATH of the Commies. There was virtually none of the greyscale morality and world-view that dominates today's world.

Nobody had made even the slightest connection, save a few scientists who were labeled as Communists (and in several cases were, not that it impacted the facts) between the use of nuclear weapons and long term health effects. Nuclear power was the wonder of the modern age. The taboo surrounding nukes was several years away, being a result of the mind-numbing power of the H-Bomb and the fact that the USSR had it as well as the U.S.

As far as the U.S. being in a bullying role, we are talking about COMMUNIST CHINA. Outside of the Soviet Bloc no one even accepted it as the legitimate government of China (and just about EVERYONE was scared of the Commies, even in what came to be known as the Warsaw Pact). The only major danger of use in Korea was a widenling of the War into a gerneral one involving the USSR.

Use of nukes in a combat role, against enemy troop concentrations in particular, would have been taken as the price of doing business. The real danger is that use in a quasi-tactical role in Korea is almost certainly going to make ongoing use of Nuclear devices as actual WEAPONS part of the 1959s & '60s world. Without the taboo that grew up around the use of nukes in the late ;50s, it is doubtful if the human race gets to 1980.
 
Yeah, once the Russians manage to catch up in deliverable warheads in the late-60's, things are going to get real ugly real fast in this TL.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks, that's actually one of my references. I just incorrectly copied down the Mark 4's mass when I did. I was hoping for some manner of note as to how they intended to deliver each of the listed munitions, but haven't really found much other than a single reference to the loading of such a bomb into a B-29.

The USAF had, in 1950, three fully functional and squadron deployed nuclear bombers.

1. A small number of B-29 Silverplates (less than 60) that had been modified for the 509th Composite Group
2. The B-50 (effectively slightly upgraded B-29s)
3. The B-36.

In addition the USN operated one aircraft that could handle the Mark 4 weapon, the AJ (later renumbered as A-2) Savage.

The B-47 was three years from being ready for squadron service. The B-52 was two years behind its smaller sibling

SAC also introduced a widely deployed, but little remembered version of the F-84, the F-84G, in 1951, that had been specially altered to handle to Mark 7 nuclear weapon. It was supposed to be a short term fix, but it wound up being the most common F-84 variant (3,025 produced) because of continued teething issues with the F-84F. The "G" had a simple autopilot to aid the pilot on very long flights, was air-to-air refuel capable, and also served as SAC's long range bomber escort into the mid 50s. The delivery method was supposed to be a "loop/toss/reversal" maneuver. It has been mentioned that pilots chosen for this mission had considerable difficulty obtaining insurance.

There was also a slightly later produced version of the F-86F & H model that was outfitted to handle the Mark 12.


Here is a site that shows the U.S. nuclear bombs and warheads and the aircraft/system that could carry each weapon. You will notice that the Mark 7 and Mark 12 were quite the crowd pleaser. The Mark 7 was the first weapon light enough to be readily deployable in most fighter bombers in the inventory

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nuke.html
 
In addition the USN operated one aircraft that could handle the Mark 4 weapon, the AJ (later renumbered as A-2) Savage

AJ Savage wasn't operational really yet. The only strike squadron available for operational duties, VC-5, had P-2 Neptunes (which could take off from carriers but could not feasibly land on them) instead (AJ Savages were in state of introduction). But in context of this TL, I see no reason why either B-29 or B-50 would be used? What would be the additional benefit of using some prototype or unreliable aircraft (B-47, B-36, AJ Savage) or a plane which was more or less jury rigged to service (P-2 Neptune, although their tactics would have probably been better against well-defended Soviet targets.) Most likely P-2 would have been deployed to the Mediterranean, though.
 
Last edited:
Top