MacArthur is Elected

I know it's unlikely but say MacArthur was elected President in 1952 during the Korean War. What would have happened from 1952 to 2000?
 
In about 1953, we would have busted a nuke on Beijing. This is okay, though: in 1953 we have like 10 times more nukes than everyone else combined, and the only H-bombs in the world.
 
In about 1953, we would have busted a nuke on Beijing. This is okay, though: in 1953 we have like 10 times more nukes than everyone else combined, and the only H-bombs in the world.

Oh sure...it's only a "limited" nuclear war, which sets a precedent for nuke use to become routine in superpower wars or even proxy wars. If he'd do it against China, then maybe use nukes against Egypt under Nasser...then against...
 
Not really, how does using more nuclear weapons, with more real signs of their savage effects make them more common?

Either the death toll of H-Bomb strikes shocks the United States and MacArthur is a one-term nutter footnote in history or it sees the collapse of Red China and he is made a hero, while nukes being used first rather than last as in WWII is seen as a life-saving device in the long run.

Actually I can see were you're coming from now. :D
 
I don't think you do. And I think that's a false either/or scenario you're setting up.

MacArthur once called for nukes to be used on the battlefield vs the Chinese. If he chose that, it's fallout over US troops and to a lesser extent, even Japan. That itself sends butterflies into their history as a country which already'd been nuked, probably sending it politically to the left and/or neutral or pacifist inclined.

You're also probably talking about an even more polarized or fearful US society, an even more extreme McCarthyism that we'd today be calling MacArthurism.

And if MacArthur is regarded as a hero, there's far less reason he or his successor wouldn't choose to use them every time US goals were frustrated by other means. In Vietnam, in Angola, Nicaragua, etc.

And why would China necessarily collapse from a single nuke in the capital? (Remember Mao's famous "paper tiger" boast about nukes.) If they can survive tens of millions lost against the Japanese, one city bombed won't make them back down.

If Mao were not in the city, it'd possibly spur Chinese intervention in Indochina, guerillas sent to British Malay colonies, aid to the Huks in the Philippines, a whole host of other ways they'd want to retaliate.

If you're talking about a full scale nuclear series of attacks, even with China's limited number of nukes, you're still talking nuclear assaults on US troops in Korea and/or Japan, or the nuking of Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't think you do. And I think that's a false either/or scenario you're setting up.

MacArthur once called for nukes to be used on the battlefield vs the Chinese. If he chose that, it's fallout over US troops and to a lesser extent, even Japan. That itself sends butterflies into their history as a country which already'd been nuked, probably sending it politically to the left and/or neutral or pacifist inclined.

You're also probably talking about an even more polarized or fearful US society, an even more extreme McCarthyism that we'd today be calling MacArthurism.

And if MacArthur is regarded as a hero, there's far less reason he or his successor wouldn't choose to use them every time US goals were frustrated by other means. In Vietnam, in Angola, Nicaragua, etc.

And why would China necessarily collapse from a single nuke in the capital? (Remember Mao's famous "paper tiger" boast about nukes.) If they can survive tens of millions lost against the Japanese, one city bombed won't make them back down.

If Mao were not in the city, it'd possibly spur Chinese intervention in Indochina, guerillas sent to British Malay colonies, aid to the Huks in the Philippines, a whole host of other ways they'd want to retaliate.

If you're talking about a full scale nuclear series of attacks, even with China's limited number of nukes, you're still talking nuclear assaults on US troops in Korea and/or Japan, or the nuking of Taiwan.


China's "limited number of nukes"? Limited meaning NONE? The PRC didn't even test until 1964.
 
Oh sure...it's only a "limited" nuclear war, which sets a precedent for nuke use to become routine in superpower wars or even proxy wars. If he'd do it against China, then maybe use nukes against Egypt under Nasser...then against...

I actually meant turning Russia and China into glass.
 
China's "limited number of nukes"? Limited meaning NONE? The PRC didn't even test until 1964.


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=2454
"U.S. officials were not terribly surprised by the test; intelligence reports since the 1950s indicated that China was working to develop an atomic bomb, possibly aided by Soviet technicians and scientists."

And while I hesitate to use this as a source, I didn't feel like digging further for another one to say the exact same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons
"In 1951 China and the Soviet Union signed an agreement whereby China would supply uranium ore in exchange for technical assistance in producing nuclear weapons. In 1953 China had established a research program under the guise of civilian nuclear energy."

Having someone as belligerent as MacArthur as your enemy's leader certainly speeds that timetable up. It also drives the two Communist states closer togrther. Potentially allowing even a stationing of Soviet nukes on Chinese territory, or at least insuring a nuclear attack on China brings a Soviet response.
 
Last edited:

Bearcat

Banned
MacArthur

was a vainglorious pompous ass. Probably would have gotten into some major scandal and lost the presidency in '56, with savage cultural / party warfare ever after, IF he didn't get us into a nuclear war first. MacArthur would've made Nixon look like a great president even considering Watergate, IMO.
 

Tom Kalbfus

Banned
I don't think you do. And I think that's a false either/or scenario you're setting up.

MacArthur once called for nukes to be used on the battlefield vs the Chinese. If he chose that, it's fallout over US troops and to a lesser extent, even Japan. That itself sends butterflies into their history as a country which already'd been nuked, probably sending it politically to the left and/or neutral or pacifist inclined.

You're also probably talking about an even more polarized or fearful US society, an even more extreme McCarthyism that we'd today be calling MacArthurism.
MacArthur beat Japan, he wasn't stupid, McCarty couldn't claim that, he was a politician. If MacArthur sees communists somewhere, believe me they are probably there.
And if MacArthur is regarded as a hero, there's far less reason he or his successor wouldn't choose to use them every time US goals were frustrated by other means. In Vietnam, in Angola, Nicaragua, etc.
More the pity for Vietnam, Angola, and Nicaragua, I think they'd be less likely to cause trouble for us, if they think the US will nuke them. MacArthru would probably destroy the Soviet Union too, and have American troops occupy the place, and reestablish democracy there. Guerilla resistance? Boom, one less troublesome Russian city!
And why would China necessarily collapse from a single nuke in the capital? (Remember Mao's famous "paper tiger" boast about nukes.) If they can survive tens of millions lost against the Japanese, one city bombed won't make them back down.
Communism is a central command economy, its controlled from the center in say Peking, if Peking goes up in a mushroom cloud, the communist command economy collapses as there is no one to write those five-year plans anymore. I think if MacArthur was sufficiently bloodthirsty, we could have a world situation similar to Harry Turtledoves In the Presence of Mine Enemies except with the USA in charge instead of the Third Reich - they basically have to stay on top and nuke anybody who looks like their developing nuclear weapons.
If Mao were not in the city, it'd possibly spur Chinese intervention in Indochina, guerillas sent to British Malay colonies, aid to the Huks in the Philippines, a whole host of other ways they'd want to retaliate.

If you're talking about a full scale nuclear series of attacks, even with China's limited number of nukes, you're still talking nuclear assaults on US troops in Korea and/or Japan, or the nuking of Taiwan.
If MacArthur is operating in a total war frame of mind, the guerilla resistance will prove futile as if they give US troops too much trouble, ole Mac will pull them out and nuke the problem away. Probably by this time he really would be an "American Caesar".
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
A couple points about the PRC.

Mao was the key to the entire country. He held the Party and the nation together by sheer force of personality. Without Mao, the entire country falls back into the same sort of civil war that had marked the rest of the 20th Century

The Soviets were NOT going to sacrifice themselves for the PRC. One thing the Soviets could do was count. In 1952 the U.S. had 1,000 deliverable weapons, and several thousand aircraft capable of delivering them to Moscow and Leningrad; the USSR had about 50 bombs and not that many mission capable bombers none of which could reach Washington DC and return. In 1953 the number are 1,400 and 120, 1954 2,000 (including a few 5+MT H-bombs) and 160. You send 30 B-47 against Moscow and it is a mortal lock that at least 5 weapons get delivered, even if the PVO has the day of it's life, more likely the formation expends a number of weapons on secondary targets after Moscow is imolated. If the attack is at night and is escorted by F3D part way (as was the practice in 1952-53 over Korea), you can cut the bomber force by half and achieve the same results.

There was no love lost between Stalin and Mao, or between any leader of the PRC and the USSR. The hottest fight either country go into between 1954 and 1979 was with each other. It was only Western misunderstanding that made the two countries appear to be allies.

This is not to say that MacArthur would have been anything but an end of the world disaster for the U.S., but reality is reality. The U.S. during the time period in question was overwhelmingly strong. Even if we gave Ivan a LOT more credit than he deserved, Moscow knew the real score.
 
In about 1953, we would have busted a nuke on Beijing. This is okay, though: in 1953 we have like 10 times more nukes than everyone else combined, and the only H-bombs in the world.

The US was, indeed, the first nation to explode an H-bomb in November 1952. However, it involved using LIQUID hydrogen, which was not militarily useful or possible. The Soviets exploded their first one in 1953, and it was a useable design - although some claim today that it was more an enhanced fission weapon than a true H-bomb. The US didn't explode their first usable H-bomb until 1954.

So, depending on how you define things, the SOVIETS were the only ones with H-bombs in 1953. (If you accept it was an H-bomb, and if you say a bomb has to be carriable to a target.)
 
There was no love lost between Stalin and Mao, or between any leader of the PRC and the USSR. The hottest fight either country go into between 1954 and 1979 was with each other. It was only Western misunderstanding that made the two countries appear to be allies.

This is not to say that MacArthur would have been anything but an end of the world disaster for the U.S., but reality is reality. The U.S. during the time period in question was overwhelmingly strong. Even if we gave Ivan a LOT more credit than he deserved, Moscow knew the real score.

Eh, I'm not so sure I'd go as far as you would. Mao the USSR weren't buddy buddy, but the Sino-Soviet split hadn't yet happened, and the two were still cooperating.

Moreover, if Ivan knew the real score, why all the provocations? Korea, Berlin, the Greek Civil War...
 
Moreover, if Ivan knew the real score, why all the provocations? Korea, Berlin, the Greek Civil War...
Perhaps the Soviets knew how far they could push the US without going too far. Stalin and Krushchev both seemed to be fairly fond of brinkmanship.

Nixon was a great president.
If not for Watergate he would have a much better reputation; certainly re-opening relations with China was a major accomplishment that ended up being overshadowed by later scandals.
 
Top