Limited Nuclear Warfare

[NotYetRegistered]

Is there any way a series of events could lead to the mainstream use of limited nuclear warfare in conventional wars against countries without nuclear weapons? I was thinking MacArthur nuking China, but would that really make it acceptable?

 

[DoomBunny]

I think you need to set the precedent on something not likely to provoke a response. A nation not under their own or another powers nuclear umbrella. Hard to find a conflict to do that in though.

 

[asnys]

Is there any way a series of events could lead to the mainstream use of limited nuclear warfare in conventional wars against countries without nuclear weapons? I was thinking MacArthur nuking China, but would that really make it acceptable?

Use of nuclear weapons in North Korea is the most likely scenario I can think of. Nuking China escalates the war to World War III, which the US wins and maybe normalizes nuclear weapons in the process, but leaves us with a world that doesn't look much like ours. Nuking North Korea, there's at least a potential for the conflict to remain contained to the Korean peninsula. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that probably would normalize the bomb - and if it didn't, nothing would.

I know there were periods when the nuclear option was at least considered in the Korean War. The main obstacles, as I understand it, were that a) the US was never really pushed to the point of "use or lose"; b) the US had very few weapons at the time and really didn't want to use one in a secondary theater; and c) there really weren't many or any targets in North Korea worth expending an atom bomb on.

Another option would be during the last days of the French operations in Vietnam in the 50s. The French didn't have nuclear weapons yet, but I know there was some talk in the US government of providing them with three tactical atomic weapons. But I don't really know much about that incident, or how far that talk went.

Finally, you could have the bomb be ready earlier in WW2, or the war drag on longer, so the US uses more weapons and the bomb gets normalized.

 

[Curiousone]

I recall reading something about an Ethiopian general getting hold of a few ex-soviet tactical warheads (artillery shells might've been) in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war. His plan was to hold onto them as 'personal insurance' but the powers that be (U.S) got wind & made him an offer he couldn't refuse to hand them over.

Frustrating, can't find the reference. Anyhow, if not that the 2001-2002 India Pakistan standoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001–02_India–Pakistan_standoff#Threat_of_nuclear_war was apparently in danger of breaking out into a limited Nuclear conflict. Neither side would have had much warning time if the other fired first, neither side had that many warheads (150ish overall).

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

Use of nuclear weapons in North Korea is the most likely scenario I can think of. Nuking China escalates the war to World War III, which the US wins and maybe normalizes nuclear weapons in the process, but leaves us with a world that doesn't look much like ours. Nuking North Korea, there's at least a potential for the conflict to remain contained to the Korean peninsula. I'm not entirely sure, but I think that probably would normalize the bomb - and if it didn't, nothing would.

I know there were periods when the nuclear option was at least considered in the Korean War. The main obstacles, as I understand it, were that a) the US was never really pushed to the point of "use or lose"; b) the US had very few weapons at the time and really didn't want to use one in a secondary theater; and c) there really weren't many or any targets in North Korea worth expending an atom bomb on.

Another option would be during the last days of the French operations in Vietnam in the 50s. The French didn't have nuclear weapons yet, but I know there was some talk in the US government of providing them with three tactical atomic weapons. But I don't really know much about that incident, or how far that talk went.

Finally, you could have the bomb be ready earlier in WW2, or the war drag on longer, so the US uses more weapons and the bomb gets normalized.

But would the SU really risk annihilation for China?

Especially when it knew that it's nukes forces were vastly inferior to the US's?

I don't think so.

If the US uses nukes in a limited fashion in NOrth Korea and Manchuria, and the SU does not respond in kind, then you have a precedent for limited use of nuclear weapons.

 

[asnys]

But would the SU really risk annihilation for China?

Especially when it knew that it's nukes forces were vastly inferior to the US's?

I don't think so.

If the US uses nukes in a limited fashion in NOrth Korea and Manchuria, and the SU does not respond in kind, then you have a precedent for limited use of nuclear weapons.

Actually, I think it's quite likely that if Truman decides he needs to hit China, then he's going to hit Russia first. They don't have very many atomic weapons at this point, and Russia is the bigger threat. Truman, at this point, thinks that Stalin is Hitler 2.0 and South Korea is the Sudetenland. If he can stop Stalin without a world war he'll do so, but Truman thinks that if they can't stop the North Koreans, then there's going to be a war anyway, and better to fight it now than later.