What if MacArthur was given permission to drop the bomb?

informationfan, I think you are seriously overestimating the nuclear capabilities of both the USA and the USSR in the 1950s and their effects.

Considering the fall out from nuclear explosions, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both aren't a radioactive wasteland but large thriving cities. While radiation is certainly bad and frightening (you can't see, feel, touch, smell, or taste it and it kills you), it is not as deadly as most people assume. So you are probably overestimating the effects of an large nuclear war.

But in the 1950s a large nuclear simply wasn't possible, for want of enough nuclear weapons on both sides. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear warhead only in 1949 and were certainly lacking the resources to produce at large stockpile of them even if they were willing an unhindered by fighting a war. Not speaking of that they lacked any long-distance strike ability. So while a nuclear war in the 1950s between the USSR and the USA would probably have been very bad for the citizens of Frankfurt or Cologne, the overall effect on the European population would probably not that large.

Also, I think, the moral assessment of the use of nuclear weapons might have been different in 1950. Our view of nuclear weapons is changed by MAD where both sides purposely targeted the population centers to completely destroy the enemy without any concern for civilian life. But this is in no way comparable to the 1950s.

Even if the USA in this scenario uses nuclear weapons against North Korea or China, I think the public will more or less see it as just a more effective way of strategic bombing (like Dresden) instead of genocidal madness.


Hi,
no, i do not belive i overestimate the danger of nuclear weapons

also, please !:) i do not talk about 1950...

in the scenario, mad dog drop 50! bombs in china, mostly in dense populated areas... that isn´t "dresden" that is genozid. And be sure, the people, in the usa and the world, will exactly see this. America slaughter millions and millions of chinese, because they try to conquer the world. communist warnings about the evil capitalist butchers will be more trustworthy in the world.

dresden was seen as a crime, hiroshima and nagasaki was seen as a crime even more - many people understood the evil of nuclear weapons... with mad dog doing so much evil, the usa are in a dilema - the liberals will fight against the ultra nationalist murderer and the people are divided in "we hate ourself for beeing so evil" and "we are gods choosen, we have the right to do what we want"...

because of the war crime commited by mad dog the russians will understood fast, that the only war with the usa is a surprise attack with so many weapons that they will be defeated very fast (something that doesn´t work - it will be a long war)

but the first attack will be by surprise and damage the us infrastructure. the war caused by this will do the most harm. Stalin will loose his hounds of war and the americans will do the same. you basically have 1960 in 1955... if you count the nukes and the weapons...

for the danger - nukes are pure evil weapons - if you use em you pay the price. NewYork hit by one nuke will be destroyed, not in the next 3 seconds, but the next 10 years... you can´t "clean" it. the usa tried in bikini and recognized it can´t be done. the russians tried to find a way to survive a nuclear war, they find out they can´t. Nobody can survive it.
 
informationfan, I think you are seriously overestimating the nuclear capabilities of both the USA and the USSR in the 1950s and their effects.

Considering the fall out from nuclear explosions, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both aren't a radioactive wasteland but large thriving cities. While radiation is certainly bad and frightening (you can't see, feel, touch, smell, or taste it and it kills you), it is not as deadly as most people assume. So you are probably overestimating the effects of an large nuclear war.

But in the 1950s a large nuclear simply wasn't possible, for want of enough nuclear weapons on both sides. The Soviets had detonated their first nuclear warhead only in 1949 and were certainly lacking the resources to produce at large stockpile of them even if they were willing an unhindered by fighting a war. Not speaking of that they lacked any long-distance strike ability. So while a nuclear war in the 1950s between the USSR and the USA would probably have been very bad for the citizens of Frankfurt or Cologne, the overall effect on the European population would probably not that large.

Also, I think, the moral assessment of the use of nuclear weapons might have been different in 1950. Our view of nuclear weapons is changed by MAD where both sides purposely targeted the population centers to completely destroy the enemy without any concern for civilian life. But this is in no way comparable to the 1950s.

Even if the USA in this scenario uses nuclear weapons against North Korea or China, I think the public will more or less see it as just a more effective way of strategic bombing (like Dresden) instead of genocidal madness.

Agreed. THe population of that time was 5 years out of WWII, when carpet bombing of cities was the norm, singles battles might kill more that whole modern wars, and nuking two cities was cause for celebration (VJ Day!).
 
Agreed. THe population of that time was 5 years out of WWII, when carpet bombing of cities was the norm, singles battles might kill more that whole modern wars, and nuking two cities was cause for celebration (VJ Day!).


maybe you ignore the fact that we speak not about the evil japanese subhumans and two nukes (with leaking informations about how bad the bombs had been), but 50! bombs against china, mostly against dense populated centers, killing more about 100 million people... not evil nazis or japs but chinese, the guys the americans helped 10 years earlier, they even started trouble with japan because of china.

That is different.

i agree about conventional bombing (okay, the first moment american cities would be the target national outcry would be great - but gladly the russian nukes will silence this very fast), this was seen as crime AFTER korea... but nukes? nope.

The whole thing is out of the box.
Just remember, mad dog did it, without a real need

"saving 8th army" cannot justify genocide and holocaust. The things mac does is exactly this. America do a holocaust without a need!

this change everything outside and inside usa. inside the McCarthy-madness will run wild, nearly destroying democracy... outside the rest of the world really hate the usa (like the islamistic jihads hate the usa), but now we speak about nearly every nation in the world,. from uk to new zealand

i think you really do not know what kind of massmurder mcarthur planned, right?
 
maybe you ignore the fact that we speak not about the evil japanese subhumans and two nukes (with leaking informations about how bad the bombs had been), but 50! bombs against china, mostly against dense populated centers, killing more about 100 million people... not evil nazis or japs but chinese, the guys the americans helped 10 years earlier, they even started trouble with japan because of china.

That is different.

i agree about conventional bombing (okay, the first moment american cities would be the target national outcry would be great - but gladly the russian nukes will silence this very fast), this was seen as crime AFTER korea... but nukes? nope.

The whole thing is out of the box.
Just remember, mad dog did it, without a real need

"saving 8th army" cannot justify genocide and holocaust. The things mac does is exactly this. America do a holocaust without a need!

this change everything outside and inside usa. inside the McCarthy-madness will run wild, nearly destroying democracy... outside the rest of the world really hate the usa (like the islamistic jihads hate the usa), but now we speak about nearly every nation in the world,. from uk to new zealand

i think you really do not know what kind of massmurder mcarthur planned, right?

I don't follow your reasoning.

Earlier you tried to say that in WWII, nobody in the Allies cared about the deaths of enemy civilians.

I recall that the general consensus as the B-29 campaign against Japan started was that the Americans should kill "about half" of the Japanese population (which would be approximately 17 million people). And Americans were mostly pretty OK with that. Why should this war be any different, especially when MacArthur was commonly regarded as a hero by the American people? And how would democracy collapse in America? That's the part that confuses me most.

So is aerial genocide something Americans don't care about, or is it something that will spark a violent revolution?

Hi, nope.

he ignored anything i wrote.
he ignore the consequences of a large scale nuclear war

No, I told you that since the Americans had few nukes and the Soviets fewer, that the Soviets had pathetic delivery systems for these nukes, since biological/chemical weapons were not likely to be used widely, and furthermore that radiation goes away over time, and lastly that political leaders would probably seek a quick cease-fire because it was in no-one's interest to keep fighting, nuclear war in the early 1950's would not be a mega-apocalypse.

he ignore my comments about this war, in political terms (as described, Mac bomb china with 20-50 bombs in 1950 - i think this will crush american society, cause the people will - under no circumstances - accept a regime that kill 100-200 million people, so the us of a will be handicaped in political things because internal problems will explode)

No, it won't crush American society, because the mass-bombings and nukings of WWII didn't, and neither did the massacres of Amerindians, nor the killings of Filipinos.

and in military consequences - cause the russians will try to beat this mad dog as fast as possible, with ALL weapons they have

Which they can't deliver

So we speak about an nbc-fullsize war in 1952, in this the us of a is weakend by internal problems,

Which won't happen

hated in the world - even its allies will turn away from this genozid nuclear holocaust monsters

And they won't, because they didn't do that in WWII and they have a strong military/economic alliance with the US

So a sneaky russian surprise attack

With Tu-4s? :rolleyes:

including conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons

That they can't deliver

will cause havoc.

Havoc that will not end the world

At last this is my thinking.

You should probably do a bit more of that.

he ignore anything about nuclear winter

I'll stop ignoring when you provide reputable scientific evidence.

For me - a full sized nuclear war is game over for everybody

This isn't full sized nuclear war. This is a few piston-engined bombers trying to lob crude nukes into defended enemy airspace.

... he belive in us-propaganda with "superman save the planet from destruction cause he had to"

Are you trying to say that I am pro-nuclear war? Cause I ain't.

he ignore the consequences of nuclear fall-out, esp. if a lot bombs will be dropped

A lot of bombs won't be dropped.

he ignore the 10.000-year pollution of radiation in dense areas...

Because the aftermath of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki hasn't lasted that long.

More nuclear weapons would result in more intense radiation, but it wouldn't last longer. Radiation only lasts a certain amount of time... there can be more, but it's not going to last longer just because it came from Tsar Bomba and not from Little Boy.

so, why should i try to talk to him?

Because when I first came to this website, I had stupid ideas and beliefs but experienced members argued with me and showed me how I was mistaken until I acquired a better understanding of various topics.

You can discuss certain things - for example discuss the numbers of nuclear weapons used in such full scale war in 1952... but to ignore nearly anything that has consequences to all humans is - at last for me - not usefull.

Moral ruminations aren't a good way to win an argument.

I have read here about an uk-survive nuclear war in 1983-wank

Cool, can you give me a link to it?

It lack anything that is realistic. Nobody can survive a large nuclear war. That is and was a propaganda lie of military madness.

Japan survived a nuclear war, and the devastation that was done to them by fire-bombing was much worse than what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yet they have the third-largest economy of any nation on Earth, behind only the US (which raped Japan) and China (which got raped by Japan).

But if you correct mistakes i never did,

I didn't

just because you like to ignore anything i write -

What did I ignore?

You could discuss the possibilities of the us airforce to destroy russian production facilities... (they do not know a shit about them, cause they had no informations about - the "b36 destroy them"-story is nothing i belive in, cause this b36 are dead large things in the air if they try to fly without escorts

Good point. Any B-36, B-50, B-29 or Tu-4 carrying nuclear weapons would be shot down before getting to enemy soil. Thus, no nuclear exchange. ;)

(same problem with the German have me262 in 1942-scenario, just even larger))

Me 262s would be faster than anything else in the skies... sorry but where's the correlation?

we also ignore the fact, that the russians in the early 50ties had a lot really good spies in nearly anything important the us of a had.

OK... so?

But i agree, maybe my numbers of bombs are to high for this period, so we can change the thing to 7-8 years of war.

Highly unlikely. The Soviets and Chinese will get nuked by heavy bomber raids with strong fighter escort, pretty soon they'll settle for a truce in which eastern Europe is opened up to democracy and North Korea is yielded to the Allies. Worldwide communism is hurt badly. Some NATO cities, maybe even in the continental US, will get nuked, but this will just strengthen American and western European resolve against communism.

Do not belive that the russians will not nuke the us of a, or install some nice biological weapons in it.

How are they going to do that again?

Let's try this a different way. This is a Tupolev Tu-4, the only Soviet bomber capable of hitting the US with a nuclear payload.

tu4.1.jpg


It can only reach the continental US on a one-way mission. It cruises at about 224mph, but were it to be confronted by an F-86 or De Havilland Venom jet fighter... no worry! It can make a shallow dive and hit 350mph without breaking a sweat. Maybe even 360mph, or a breakneck 380mph! That should give it a few minutes of life before the Mach 0.9 interceptors blow it out of the skies. Yeah, the Russians really do have a foolproof delivery system.

Maybe (we all do not know a lot about these things) this is enough to wipe out human mankind...

And maybe it's not. Oh, wait a minute--it's definitely not.

Just remember - i create a scenario - he (and you) do critizise em, but do also give no proof about it.

You are creating a scenario. I am criticizing it because you have given neither proof nor substantial evidence for it.

You belive in "the us of a will destroy russian facilities" and i belive in "the usa do not find em, their long range bombing end in shot down b36

Then the Russian bombing will end in shot-down Tu-4. The Americans will have an easier time hitting the Soviets than vice-versa because we have better bombers and our strategic position lets us put airbases closer to Soviet territory and lets American aircraft attack from routes that give the Soviets less warning than if they attack us.

Think about it this way: a Soviet bomber has to cross Canada or pass Western Europe or Japan to reach the lower '48 states. An American bomber has to go across northern Russia to hit Moscow, but that's not quite as far, and besides, Chinese targets will be close and vulnerable.

We both cannot give prove - cause the described situation never had happend (gladly)

We need numbers of nuclear weapons in 1951, 52... then we need informations about "how fast could both side produce em in a war" and also we need informations about the chance to destroy em....

We have the basic information to know how the scenario would involve.

I just developted a scenario, it may be faulty, but at last i described on. He just ignored the described scenario and critizised things i never said so.

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out how it was wrong.
 
Last edited:
In the early 50s the USSR can't hit the US in a nuke fight, they didn't even plan on using there few nukes that way is they ended up in a fight with the US. They had so few they planned on using them as tactical weapons to fight off the "inevitable" us invasion after the initial American strike. The US had the capabilities to kill pretty much China as a nation and while that bothers us and may have bothered a lot of internationals and left wingers back then, most Americans aren't going to say much about it for another decade or so.

on a side note, I explore the use of nuclear weapons in China in my TL "Out Run My Gun".
 
In the early 50s the USSR can't hit the US in a nuke fight, they didn't even plan on using there few nukes that way is they ended up in a fight with the US. They had so few they planned on using them as tactical weapons to fight off the "inevitable" us invasion after the initial American strike. The US had the capabilities to kill pretty much China as a nation and while that bothers us and may have bothered a lot of internationals and left wingers back then, most Americans aren't going to say much about it for another decade or so.

on a side note, I explore the use of nuclear weapons in China in my TL "Out Run My Gun".


hm, so you think people who disagree to nuclear genocide are "leftwingers" and most of the american people will say "well done"?

why do you think so?

about russian counters.... in the plot Mac drop 30-50 nukes in china... we do not speak about 1-3 nukes, but 30-50 causing millions and millions killed chinese.

this would - i suggest - change the worlds view about some things

the world - aka all beside the us of a - will see the usa as nazi-reloaded. and the use of nukes mean that every nation will try to have them also and stalin will build even more as historically... also he will prepare for "real" war, that means he need to destroy the us of a or he will be destroyed

and i bet most people in the world will heartly agree with him that it is better to destroy this america.

do you really think that only "leftwingers" will have trouble with this kind of us of a?
 
informationfan, the problem is that your entire premise is ASB, from Truman approving use of most of the US nuclear arsenal against Chinese cities to the USSR racing to start a war in 1955 while incapable of actually striking at the US, a US now presented as dripping with atomic weapons and eager to use them at the slightest excuse.

I also see that you continue to ignore the fact that the Soviets were building atomic weapons as fast as they could and would be incapable of increasing their production, much as they would very much like to have done so OTL.
 
hm, so you think people who disagree to nuclear genocide are "leftwingers" and most of the american people will say "well done"?


No I don't, and I never said that.As I said, American outcry would be minimal at the time but grow. it would be about a decade before you see real American backlash against the event

The senario of using up so much of America's nuclear arsenal against China is so implausable as to almost be ASB. The US isn't going to use an anologue of Operation Dropshot on China, when it didn't even use it against the USSR.
 
hm, so you think people who disagree to nuclear genocide are "leftwingers" and most of the american people will say "well done"?

why do you think so?

about russian counters.... in the plot Mac drop 30-50 nukes in china... we do not speak about 1-3 nukes, but 30-50 causing millions and millions killed chinese.

this would - i suggest - change the worlds view about some things

the world - aka all beside the us of a - will see the usa as nazi-reloaded. and the use of nukes mean that every nation will try to have them also and stalin will build even more as historically... also he will prepare for "real" war, that means he need to destroy the us of a or he will be destroyed

and i bet most people in the world will heartly agree with him that it is better to destroy this america.

do you really think that only "leftwingers" will have trouble with this kind of us of a?

Informationfan (and with that name, one would hope you really want accurate information), I don't think you understand the national and global mood in the early-mid-1950s. I grew up in that era, and most of the United States and Europe would have stood up and cheered if we had used our extremely limited nuclear weapons to knock back North Korea and China. There was also enough racism prevalent that killing a few million "Chinks" (as they were called then) would not have bothered a lot of people. After all, we had just come out of a war where tens of millions had died.

After the losses of WWII and the widespread belief that using nukes on Japan had saved the million American casualties an invasion of the Home Islands would have cost, using nuclear weapons would not have been widely condemned. In fact, Truman's decision against their use and his subsequent firing of MacArthur were extremely controversial.

Russia would have done nothing beyond some saber rattling, simply because it didn't have the strategic or tactical capability to do anything. In fact, given the display of the U.S. willingness to use nukes, it's extremely doubtful it would have made any warlike moves in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Informationfan (and with that name, one would hope you really want acurate information), I don't think you understand the national and global mood in the early-mid-1950s. I grew up in that era, and most of the United States and Europe would have stood up and cheered if we had used our extremely limited nuclear weapons to knock back North Korea and China. There was also enough racism prevalent that killing a few million "Chinks" (as they were called then) would not have bothered a lot of people.

After the losses of WWII and the widespread belief that using nukes on Japan had saved the million American casualties an invasion of the Home Islands would have cost, using nuclear weapons would not have been widely condemned. In fact, Truman's decision against their use and his subsequent firing of MacArthur were extremely controversial.

Russia would have done nothing beyond some saber rattling, simply because it didn't have the strategic or tactical capability to do anything. In fact, given the display of the U.S. willingness to use nukes, it's extremely doubtful it would have made any warlike moves in Europe.


Hi, i really seek informations
if you lived in this time you have knowledge.
it makes me sad, but i have to agree that at last many (?) americans would be racial and brutal monsters, if they would NOT deny this crime.
I still would battle the opinion, that most europeans (or people from other areas in the world) would cheer... cause the case is different

we have china, being wiped out (again i like to remember mad dog and 50 nukes) and 100 or more million people dead.

for what?
did the chinese attack directly the us of a? no
did they a sneak attack like japan? no
did they crimes like the japanese did, esp. against americans? no

i even think that most americans (that is - at last my opinon, if you say different i have to accept) would feel different if the usa had dropped 50 nukes at japan and kill 50 million japanese... because i think it is out of any scope.

the consequences in the world - well, if most people in the world are halfnazis you may be right. but i think this isn´t true.. and so the consequences for the usa would be seriously... i still think the russians will prepare a war to destroy america and this say kill every american cause they are evil, more evil as any nazi was (that would be the thinking i bet) maybe 1953 is to early, but in 1960 or 61 with cuba, the russians would do it. now they have the missles and they will not retreat, they - and most of the rest of the world knows that the usa are evil.

i also think that an usa using 50 nukes against china, will change. it will try to be more agressive - also it will have megavietnam - in china. sure, most will be dead or dying, but the rest will fight against the usa... this will suck all military power the usa are able to use... constant brutal war. no mercy, also i think a lot chinese supporters from the world, like the american volunteers, just now against the us of a.
the usa would be like evil russian propaganda, just worse.

and in 63 latest, world would explode.

so your comments about how cruel american average people are in the 50ties are a sad commet... i had a higher opinion of them... :(
 
for what?
did the chinese attack directly the us of a? no

They attacked a UN Army in the field, of which one of the two biggest contributors was the US. They killed a lot of American soldiers, and a lot of non-American soldiers, too. That's an act of war no matter how you slice it.
 
1. How will people in New Zealand, Australia, Easter Island, Dem. Rep. of the Congo, Kansas, Tierra del Fuego, Iceland, and a hell of a lot of other places die? No one is going to attack them there.

People in the Democratic Republic of Congo won't die at all, because it simply did not exist yet. Throughout the 1950ies it's still the Belgian Congo.

If the US use nuclear weapons against the PRC in 1950, a good part of the weapons will be used against PLA troop concentrations in North Korea and the Chinese border regions where more PLA troops are assembled. It's also possible, that they might use some nukes against major arms factories in Chinas heartland and strategic transportation hubs. Both of those are generally also heavily populated, especially in in a densely populated country like China, and would result in 6 digit casualty numbers each, but would still be regarded as legitimate targets, just like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki before.

As long as the US would not attempt an outright invasion of the PRC, the USSR would most probabely do nothing more than some sabre rattling around Berlin and use every bit of intel about poor suffering chinese children to blackmail the US in an agit prop war. They would definately try to bring the topic of a neutral and united Germany up again. Seeing the devastations of a nuclear war, public opinion in West Germany might swing against rearmament and westintegration of the FRG and with some help from Moscow, the french Communists might be able to swing opinion in France towards the idea of having a neutral Germany and Austria as buffer states between east and west.

So along with Austria, Germany might be reunited in 1955 as a neutral country, that, just like Austria, would not be a part of NATO, but would still be a western democracy and market economy and might very well still be one of the founfding members of the EEC. While looking like a diplomatic victory for the Soviets at first, it might later badly backfire for them, because it would set a precedent that the USSR was willing to release one of its satalites - the GDR - from its orbit, a move that the Hungarians might try to replicate in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.
 
Last edited:
People in the Democratic Republic of Congo won't die at all, because it simply did not exist yet. Throughout the 1950ies it's still the Belgian Congo.

If the US use nuclear weapons against the PRC in 1950, a good part of the weapons will be used against PLA troop concentrations in North Korea and the Chinese border regions where more PLA troops are assembled. It's also possible, that they might use some nukes against major arms factories in Chinas heartland and strategic transportation hubs. Both of those are generally also heavily populated, especially in in a densely populated country like China, and would result in 6 digit casualty numbers each, but would still be regarded as legitimate targets, just like Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki before.

As long as the US would not attempt an outright invasion of the PRC, the USSR would most probabely do nothing more than some sabre rattling around Berlin and use every bit of intel about poor suffering chinese children to blackmail the US in an agit prop war. They would definately try to bring the topic of a neutral and united Germany up again. Seeing the devastations of a nuclear war, public opinion in West Germany might swing agains rearmament and westintegration of the FRG and with some help from Moscow, the french Communists might be able to swing opinion in France towards the idea of having a neutral Germany and Austria as buffer states between east and west.

So along with Austria, Germany might be reunited in 1955 as a neutral country, that, just like Austria, would not be a part of NATO, but would still be a western democracy and market economy and might very well still be one of the founfding members of the EEC. While looking like a diplomatic victory for the Soviets at first, it might later badly backfire for them, because it would set a precedent that the USSR was willing to release one of its satalites - the GDR - from its orbit, a move that the Hungarians might try to replicate in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Lets assume that we don't have indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons.

Lets look at what was actually being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur#Nuclear_weapons

On 5 April 1951, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted orders for MacArthur authorizing attacks on Manchuria and the Shantung Peninsula if the Chinese launched airstrikes against his forces originating from there.[98] The next day Truman met with the chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Gordon Dean,[97] and arranged for the transfer of nine Mark 4 nuclear bombs to military control.[99] Dean was apprehensive about delegating the decision on how they should be used to MacArthur, who lacked expert technical knowledge of the weapons and their effects.[100] The Joint Chiefs were not entirely comfortable about giving them to MacArthur either, for fear that he might prematurely carry out his orders. This was overtaken by the events of his MacArthur's relief, and the orders were never sent

Nine weapons, not hundreds.

Just taking out Chinese airbases doesn't seem like an effective use of the weapons.

I hope that in this senerio, several of the weapons are misallocatd to hit troop concentrations, or bridges.
 
Hi, i really seek informations
if you lived in this time you have knowledge.
it makes me sad, but i have to agree that at last many (?) americans would be racial and brutal monsters, if they would NOT deny this crime.
Monsters? Not in the least. Again, you truly do not seem to understand the era or the popular opinions prevalent at the time, not just in the US but everywhere. Everything that happens has to be understood in light of World War II, a horrific event that was still fresh in the memories of the entire world. The estimates of the death toll of that war run as high as 90 million people. Try to comprehend that number of deaths and its affect on the survivors. Using nuclear weapons would be seen by many as ultimately saving more lives than they cost. Today we protest and mourn the deaths of dozen soldiers in Afghanistan or the thousand or so civilians who died in Tiananmen Square (depending on the source). A single WWII sea battle in the South Pacific or an attack into the Ardennes dwarfs those numbers.
I still would battle the opinion, that most europeans (or people from other areas in the world) would cheer... cause the case is different

we have china, being wiped out (again i like to remember mad dog and 50 nukes) and 100 or more million people dead.
You grossly overestimate the toll from even 50 nuclear weapons, assuming we would even use that many, which I think you also grossly overestimate. The total death toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was under 250,000, including wounded who died in the next two to four months.
for what?
did the chinese attack directly the us of a? no
Yes. The Chinese army attacked across the Yalu River directly into American forces. See Chosin Reservoir.
did they a sneak attack like japan? no
did they crimes like the japanese did, esp. against americans? no

i even think that most americans (that is - at last my opinon, if you say different i have to accept) would feel different if the usa had dropped 50 nukes at japan and kill 50 million japanese... because i think it is out of any scope.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. English is not your native language, true? See comment above for the actual death toll in Japan. And again there is nothing to indicate that MacArthur or Truman would use 50 nuclear weapons. A handful of low-yield weapons on Chinese/NK troop and supply concentrations would have been more than enough to send the necessary message.
the consequences in the world - well, if most people in the world are halfnazis you may be right. but i think this isn´t true.. and so the consequences for the usa would be seriously... i still think the russians will prepare a war to destroy america and this say kill every american cause they are evil, more evil as any nazi was (that would be the thinking i bet)
Again, no. First, you assume without justification that the US would use more than a handful of nuclear weapons. Second, you assume without justification that this would incense the Russians enough to plan their own genocidal campaign against the US. (By Stalin, a man who didn't hesitate to kill millions of his own people through purges, gulags, and starvation.) And third, your description of Americans as "evil" has no basis in fact.

maybe 1953 is to early, but in 1960 or 61 with cuba, the russians would do it. now they have the missles and they will not retreat, they - and most of the rest of the world knows that the usa are evil.

i also think that an usa using 50 nukes against china, will change. it will try to be more agressive - also it will have megavietnam - in china. sure, most will be dead or dying, but the rest will fight against the usa... this will suck all military power the usa are able to use... constant brutal war. no mercy, also i think a lot chinese supporters from the world, like the american volunteers, just now against the us of a.
the usa would be like evil russian propaganda, just worse.

and in 63 latest, world would explode.

so your comments about how cruel american average people are in the 50ties are a sad commet... i had a higher opinion of them... :(
Sigh. Given your posting history on this thread, I'm not sure you want to deal with this issue realistically. You seem focused on some apocalyptic showdown between a white-knight USSR and an uber-evil US that sterilizes the planet. Plus I suspect you've read "On the Beach" too many times. Rethink it in non-ASB terms and you might understand the how and why.
 
Some (hopefully accurate) figures...

Taken from:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

Sez that at the discussed time, the US had the Mark-3 bomb (120 produced, retired late 1950). Yield was variable; 18-49 KT. It was essentially the same as the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

The US also had the Mark-4 bomb - 550 produced in total from March 1949-May 1951. Yield also variable, 1-31 KT.

Assuming these figures are accurate, the US had more than enough weapons in late 1950 to do horrific damage to both the USSR and China, and still have a few left over.

MacArthur's initial request was for 34 A-bombs, to be dropped on Chinese military targets and troop concentrations. It's worth noting, too, that when MacArthur was cashiered and replaced by Gen. Matt Ridgway, Ridgway also asked for atomic bombs to be made available.

Also of interest was later doctrine, in which the US would most certainly have used nuclear weapons in the very early stages of another invasion by the North. This was planned until the late 1980s. See the article located here: http://books.google.com/books?id=cg...BTgK#v=onepage&q=macarthur bomb china&f=false

The relevant bit starts on the bottom of page 18.
 
They attacked a UN Army in the field, of which one of the two biggest contributors was the US. They killed a lot of American soldiers, and a lot of non-American soldiers, too. That's an act of war no matter how you slice it.


Hi, maybe - but this justify the mass murderer at 50-200 mio people?
never - not in my world.

or my opinion about americans need some adoption (to the lowest level)
 
Monsters? Not in the least. Again, you truly do not seem to understand the era or the popular opinions prevalent at the time, not just in the US but everywhere. Everything that happens has to be understood in light of World War II, a horrific event that was still fresh in the memories of the entire world. The estimates of the death toll of that war run as high as 90 million people. Try to comprehend that number of deaths and its affect on the survivors. Using nuclear weapons would be seen by many as ultimately saving more lives than they cost. Today we protest and mourn the deaths of dozen soldiers in Afghanistan or the thousand or so civilians who died in Tiananmen Square (depending on the source). A single WWII sea battle in the South Pacific or an attack into the Ardennes dwarfs those numbers.
You grossly overestimate the toll from even 50 nuclear weapons, assuming we would even use that many, which I think you also grossly overestimate. The total death toll from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was under 250,000, including wounded who died in the next two to four months.

Yes. The Chinese army attacked across the Yalu River directly into American forces. See Chosin Reservoir.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. English is not your native language, true? See comment above for the actual death toll in Japan. And again there is nothing to indicate that MacArthur or Truman would use 50 nuclear weapons. A handful of low-yield weapons on Chinese/NK troop and supply concentrations would have been more than enough to send the necessary message.Again, no. First, you assume without justification that the US would use more than a handful of nuclear weapons. Second, you assume without justification that this would incense the Russians enough to plan their own genocidal campaign against the US. (By Stalin, a man who didn't hesitate to kill millions of his own people through purges, gulags, and starvation.) And third, your description of Americans as "evil" has no basis in fact.

Sigh. Given your posting history on this thread, I'm not sure you want to deal with this issue realistically. You seem focused on some apocalyptic showdown between a white-knight USSR and an uber-evil US that sterilizes the planet. Plus I suspect you've read "On the Beach" too many times. Rethink it in non-ASB terms and you might understand the how and why.

Hi, so the yalu river is in the united states? Strange, i thought it was the border between northern korea and china....

my point is, that the us of a wasn´t directly attacked, they fight for korea. so i think massmurder of millions of people will have an impact. You say, it will not - that says a lot about americans in this time.

the UdSSR ist NOT the white knight - never... Stalin is a monster!
just the usa behave even more evil - so the evil Stalin look whiter

What is "on the beach"? Do you have sources?

About the 50 bombs, it was discussed here that MadDog would drop between 30-50 bombs. I took 50... so this is the number

and that he will use em is part of the plot, not my idea... please read the thing, i do not like it if you say it is my "idea" - i just stay with the plot... at last as it was discussed to this stage... there the 30-50 bombs from MadDog were mentioned.

but thank you for your comments - i disagree to some parts - esp. about the two nukes in japan, but i have learned not to discuss such things, cause it is useless - if the people use different numbers. But that is okay...
 
Hi, so the yalu river is in the united states? Strange, i thought it was the border between northern korea and china....

my point is, that the us of a wasn´t directly attacked, they fight for korea. so i think massmurder of millions of people will have an impact. You say, it will not - that says a lot about americans in this time.

the UdSSR ist NOT the white knight - never... Stalin is a monster!
just the usa behave even more evil - so the evil Stalin look whiter

What is "on the beach"? Do you have sources?

About the 50 bombs, it was discussed here that MadDog would drop between 30-50 bombs. I took 50... so this is the number

and that he will use em is part of the plot, not my idea... please read the thing, i do not like it if you say it is my "idea" - i just stay with the plot... at last as it was discussed to this stage... there the 30-50 bombs from MadDog were mentioned.

but thank you for your comments - i disagree to some parts - esp. about the two nukes in japan, but i have learned not to discuss such things, cause it is useless - if the people use different numbers. But that is okay...

I understand that English is not your first language (I hope!) but it is hard to follow your arguments.

At first you seemed to be saying that USSR and the rest of the world would retaliate against US atomic attacks. As has been pointed out the rest of the world (UN) was actually allied to the US in Korea and if USSR had retaliated with either conventional or atomic attacks the US had sufficient bombs and delivery systems to ensure the Russian bomb making sites were permanently put out of service

The Russians did not have the ability to do the same to the US and I'd argue in 1950 or 1951 they would be hard pushed to deliver one nuke successfully against a major Western European city.

Later you're saying that the US would be a pariah - thats true, amongst the liberal inteligensia but not so for the masses in the early 50's who would see it as an extension of the war against the dictators. After the war China and the UUSR would hate the US but it is likely to be a unipolat world with USA as the only superpower. USSR and China would be as threatening to US as Iraq under Saddam was - huge manpower but poorly armed and low tech.
 
What is "on the beach"? Do you have sources?

On the Beach is a novel. It's a very good one, about the aftermath of a nuclear war in which the human race is going extinct because the world has been poisoned by fallout. It had a lot of influence on public attitudes towards the bomb, and some people credit it with spreading the idea that fallout would make humanity go extinct.

The part of the novel that everyone misses is that it's about the aftermath of a war that saw the use of thousands of cobalt bombs. It's not an accurate description of the aftermath of a "conventional" nuclear war. It may not even be an accurate description of a war with cobalt bombs. But it's a very good novel.

At first you seemed to be saying that USSR and the rest of the world would retaliate against US atomic attacks. As has been pointed out the rest of the world (UN) was actually allied to the US in Korea and if USSR had retaliated with either conventional or atomic attacks the US had sufficient bombs and delivery systems to ensure the Russian bomb making sites were permanently put out of service

The Russians did not have the ability to do the same to the US and I'd argue in 1950 or 1951 they would be hard pushed to deliver one nuke successfully against a major Western European city.

I think he's saying that the USSR would not retaliate immediately, but would bide their time until they had the weapons and delivery systems to attack the US. Because, after destroying China, the USSR would believe that the US was looking for an excuse to attack them, and needed to be destroyed first.
 
Hi, so the yalu river is in the united states? Strange, i thought it was the border between northern korea and china....

my point is, that the us of a wasn´t directly attacked, they fight for korea. so i think massmurder of millions of people will have an impact. You say, it will not - that says a lot about americans in this time.

You're not listening. Again, you're making up facts to suit your argument rather than dealing with reality. "Massmurder (sic) of millions" is a wild overstatement. Any bombs used were planned for troop concentrations, not major cities.
the UdSSR ist NOT the white knight - never... Stalin is a monster!
just the usa behave even more evil - so the evil Stalin look whiter

What is "on the beach"? Do you have sources?

Google/Bing are your friends. And your definition of "evil" leaves much to be desired, since the requirements to qualify for that word would not be met.
About the 50 bombs, it was discussed here that MadDog would drop between 30-50 bombs. I took 50... so this is the number

and that he will use em is part of the plot, not my idea... please read the thing, i do not like it if you say it is my "idea" - i just stay with the plot... at last as it was discussed to this stage... there the 30-50 bombs from MadDog were mentioned.
As noted elsewhere, MacArthur asked for 34 bombs to be used on military targets, as did his successor.
but thank you for your comments - i disagree to some parts - esp. about the two nukes in japan, but i have learned not to discuss such things, cause it is useless - if the people use different numbers. But that is okay...
The numbers are the numbers. Making up new ones doesn't alter the facts.

Trying to judge the attitudes and opinions of 60 years ago by modern standards is revisionist history at its worst. Your efforts to portray those times in the worst possible light lead me to believe you are either quite young or have little accurate historical education about that era. Are you in China, by any chance?
 
Top