Challenge: Third Nuke Used in Warfare

Israel is losing one of their war with one of their neighbors and don't want to be the only looser?

Israel would only use its nukes in response to conventional warfare if its very existence was threatened. They wouldn't just use nukes for the hell of it, as they'd risk losing western support and cause a shitestorm in the Middle East that will never die down until the battle of Tel Megiddo some trillion years later.
 
Last edited:
June-July 1961, Iraqi leader Colonel Qasim begins building up forces on the Kuwaiti border.

MI6 informs the British Prime Minister that it is surely a bluff and diplomatic manoeuvring, similar to Iraq's recent border disputes with Iran.

August 1961, Iraqi tanks cross the Kuwaiti border, and Colonel Qasim (prematurely) declares that Kuwait will henceforth be the 19th province of Iraq.

Unable to deploy land forces in time to stop the invasion, an RAF Victor drops drops a Blue Danube 12kt (Red Beard not yet being in service) on an Iraqi divisional HQ that has just crossed the Kuwaiti border.
 
June-July 1961, Iraqi leader Colonel Qasim begins building up forces on the Kuwaiti border.

MI6 informs the British Prime Minister that it is surely a bluff and diplomatic manoeuvring, similar to Iraq's recent border disputes with Iran.

August 1961, Iraqi tanks cross the Kuwaiti border, and Colonel Qasim (prematurely) declares that Kuwait will henceforth be the 19th province of Iraq.

Unable to deploy land forces in time to stop the invasion, an RAF Victor drops drops a Blue Danube 12kt (Red Beard not yet being in service) on an Iraqi divisional HQ that has just crossed the Kuwaiti border.

'91 parallel? :D
 
Israel would only use its nukes in response to conventional warfare if its very existence was threatened. They wouldn't just use nukes for the hell of it, as they'd risk losing western support and cause a shitestorm in the Middle East that will never die down until the battle of Tel Megiddo some trillion years later.

The other problem with the scenarios in this thread, is I would think a graded response is more likely.

First they drop a nuke near the battlefield.

If that doesn't stop the attack or get superpowers to stop the attack, then they drop the 2nd nuke

The 2nd nuke is on a minor city

And if that doesn't stop the attack or get superpowers to stop the attack, then they drop the 3rd nuke


Going straight for Damascus or Cairo is stupid, because there's a good chance it leads directly to national destruction of Israel, and even if it doesn't, it has no effect on the Arab armies in the field but leaves Israel with no Arab leaders to negotiate a ceasefire with.
 

elkarlo

Banned
The Korean war goes worse for the US / UN forces and the US uses a single nuke to prevent a large scale surrender of US / UN forces.

or just have the Busan perimeter be on the brink of collapse. They were pretty hard pressed, a bit more NK forces, and we may have had to go Nuke.
 
2 distinct possibilities, both of which, AFAIK, were real p[ossibilities. 1 Gulf War 1 on a major Iraqi population centre, perhaps even Baghdad, if ABC weapons were used by Iraqi forces on 'Allied' troops. 2 Melvinas War - starts to go badly for the British Imperialists, a major Argentinian city is nuked as a consequence! Also 3 AFAIK, Nuking Chinese cities was advocated during the Korean War!
 

Macragge1

Banned
2 distinct possibilities, both of which, AFAIK, were real p[ossibilities. 1 Gulf War 1 on a major Iraqi population centre, perhaps even Baghdad, if ABC weapons were used by Iraqi forces on 'Allied' troops. 2 Melvinas War - starts to go badly for the British Imperialists, a major Argentinian city is nuked as a consequence! Also 3 AFAIK, Nuking Chinese cities was advocated during the Korean War!

The British Imperialists? It's a rather bold claim referring to any sort of British 'Empire' in the 1980s, let alone in reference to the Falklands War, in which the UK defended the islander's absolute desire to remain British subjects.

Britain is not going to deploy a nuclear weapon against the Argentine Mainland, or anywhere else, for that matter; it gets them no further towards achieving their strategic aims, and makes them a pariah with the whole world; a world which basically supports her entirely in her war against unprovoked Argentine aggression.

EDIT - As an aside, there's no such place as the 'Malvinas' (or, for that matter, the 'Melvinas'). You'll find that they are called the Falkland Islands.
 
A very successful Yom Kippur offensive for the Arabs and Egyptians may lead to Israelis panicking and using nukes.
 
:eek:
June-July 1961, Iraqi leader Colonel Qasim begins building up forces on the Kuwaiti border.

MI6 informs the British Prime Minister that it is surely a bluff and diplomatic manoeuvring, similar to Iraq's recent border disputes with Iran.

August 1961, Iraqi tanks cross the Kuwaiti border, and Colonel Qasim (prematurely) declares that Kuwait will henceforth be the 19th province of Iraq.

Unable to deploy land forces in time to stop the invasion, an RAF Victor drops drops a Blue Danube 12kt (Red Beard not yet being in service) on an Iraqi divisional HQ that has just crossed the Kuwaiti border.


would Super Mac have really down that :eek:
 
......there's no such place as the 'Malvinas' (or, for that matter, the 'Melvinas'). You'll find that they are called the Falkland Islands.
Unless you happen to be an Argentine, in which case they are the Malvinas. Personally, I'll call them the Falklands, but one can make a case.
 
Operation Vulture (Opération Vautour in French) was the name of the proposed American operation that would rescue French forces at battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 via B-29 raids based in the Philippines. The French garrison had been surrounded by the communist Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. Vulture was the sequel of the failed Operation Condor.


One version of the plan envisioned sending 60 B-29s from US bases in the region, supported by as many as 150 fighters launched from US Seventh Fleet carriers, to bomb Giap’s positions. The plan included an option to use up to three atomic weapons on the Viet Minh positions. Radford, the top American military officer, gave this nuclear option his backing. US B-29s, B-36s, and B-47s could have executed a nuclear strike, as could carrier aircraft from the Seventh Fleet. U.S. carriers sailed to the Tonkin gulf, and reconnaissance flights over Dien Bien Phu were conducted during the negotiations. According to Richard Nixon the plan involved the Joint Chiefs of Staff drawing up plans to use 3 small tactical nuclear weapons in support of the French.


Nixon, a so-called "hawk" on Vietnam, suggested that the U.S. might have to "put American boys in". President Eisenhower made American participation contingent on British support, but London was opposed
In the end, convinced that the political risks outweighed the possible benefits, Eisenhower decided against the intervention.


London says yes and we get three bombs at once.
 
:eek:


would Super Mac have really down that :eek:

In this timeline, he's known as Atom-Mac. Also, since the Victor probably took off from Akrotiri, this will have an interesting effect on Cyprus. Maybe.

Back in OTL: I read somewhere (can't find the reference) that one of the things Qasim did fear was a nuclear strike from the nuclear capable Scimitar bombers on British carriers. Seems possible, except I dont think Red Beard was deployed until 1962 - the following year - and Scimitars couldnt carry the heavier bombs such as Blue Danube. of course, maybe Qasim didn't know that.
 
If I remember correctly, Niigata would be the target for the third bomb (it was the primary target for the second bomb, but bad weather forced the B-29 to hit the secondary target: Nagasaki). Tokyo was never on the list because the US didn't want to decapitate the Japanese government... someone had to be there to sign on the dotted line after all.

I recall that there was a fourth target, but I can't remember exactly what it was. After that, the US would either have to find new targets or just start stockpiling for use in support of the invasion...

EDIT: Correction, Kokura was the primary target for the second (and likely third) atom bomb. Niigata was also on the list and there was a fifth target, Yokohama, although I recall one of these was struck for some reason. Interestingly, Yokohama is directly across Tokyo Bay from... well, Tokyo. Hence it would be a front row seat for the Japanese leadership to see the bomb. I wonder why they didn't hit it first or second.

From what I recall the old target list started off as:

1. Kyoto
2. Hiroshima
3. Yokohama
4. Kokura Arsenal
5. Niigata

This list in the Target Committee got whittled down to

1. Kyoto
2. Hiroshima
3. Yokohama
4. Kokura Arsenal

and then got rearranged by planners to:

1. Hiroshima
2. Kokura
3. Kyoto
4. Nigata


before Kyoto was removed upon Stimson's urging (along with the results of some studies apparently) and replaced with Nagasaki and then the list became:

1. Hiroshima
2. Kokura
3. Nagasaki
4. Niigata

which was then presented to Truman and approved in July.

After the bombs were dropped a new target list was proposed around August 14 by General Twining:

1. Sapporo
2. Hakodate
3. Oyabu
4. Yokosuka
5. Osaka
6. Nagoya

Truman himself apparently remarked to the British ambassador and the Duke of Windsor (yes the Abdicator King), that he might have to drop an atomic bomb on Tokyo. Given how much Truman had been kept in the dark about the bomb while he was Vice President and how the Target Committee had ruled out Tokyo for a variety of reasons, I doubt Tokyo would have been bombed. Incinerating the Emperor would be removing the only person who could legitimize an eventual surrender.

If another bomb was going to be dropped I could see Kokura (since it was on the original list), Sapporo (which would demonstrate the reach of America in terms of atomic bombing - the length and breadth of Japan would be subject to it) and Yokosuka (close enough to Tokyo that the Emperor and generals in Tokyo should get the point without being vaporized) being the most probable targets.
 
I think that after the Japanese Surrender, the optimal time for a third nuke to be launched (without resulting in full-scale nuclear warfare) would be between 1945 and 1949, when the Soviets officially tested their first nuke.

(Yes, I've been watching too many Starcraft II videos.)

Challenge now is, where will the US drop its next few nukes?
 
The best time for a third nuke to be used and not cause WW3 is for the US/UN mission in Korea to discover the Chinese Army formations and then eviscerate them with a few nukes as they mass on the Yalu.
 
Top