WI: MacArthur used nuclear weapons in Korea

Stalin is not likely to do anything in response. But even with the closest comparable power base the USSR loses face if they are not at least willing to show some sort of response. China unites against the US and gets *really* nervous with the Yalu becoming a larger and more fortified border. With the willingness to use nuclear weapons reaffirmed, the US loses face in other areas of the world, especially as Europe likely evolves into an independent power bloc in the 1970s and 1980s once they have their own nukes. The attractiveness of a native nuclear weapons program is solidified and every country that can scrambles for their own. De-nuclearization yields much less response and perhaps one of the Indo-Pak or Israeli conflicts also goes nuclear in the 1970s, creating an evem more severe oil shock. With the development of the Internet and greater computer systems and the fall of the USSR, an independent Republic of Korea along with Taiwan and Japan grow more autonomous and veer away from the US orbit. Much of Latin America tires of pro-US governments but rebellions are fewer (though more intense) as the fear of nuclear weapons is present. While no one f***s with the USA no one really wants to deal with her either for a generation or two.
 
well it stalled.. of course there was no formal end of the hostilities. however last I checked the north is on their side of said agreed line.

there are lots of wars that don't end in a formal peace treaty, especially since it was a UN police action and not a formal war.

IF the Soviets invaded of course we would have used them. History has shown that they didn't. bejesus, The Soviet Union and eastern Europe were still recovering from the last war in Europe.
No President would like to be remembered as a mass murderer, hitting china and spreading the conflict would have been a bad thing.

Last but not least. We knew that our solo atomic monopoly was at an end. other nations were working to get them. so if we started using them, what would stop others from using them. yes conventional bombs cause damage, but 90% of conventional weapons do not flatten entire cities and leave it glowing in the dark.

So we use them in Korea, then someone uses them in the middle east, or someone uses them between India and Pakistan, or maybe between the Ussr and china if things started to get ugly, maybe the French would like to use one in Vietnam or one of its colonial wars.

one sets an awful usage precedent that as Ike and Truman and others new full well of - wise not the wisest of moves.

note: while American and South Korean forces made up the bulk, there was other boots on the ground. I would have stuck to the 12/51 gains in any peace deal. problem was in reality we were fighting china, then rattle a sword if they are not interested. China could throw men at things, but couldn't hope to best the Western forces.
First of all the fighting didn't just Peter out we have a armistice which is normally used to do a peace treaty it how do you get a peace treaty if North Korea and China doesn't want one. You mentioned that Russia would not have invaded Europe because they in Eastern Europe was still recovering from World War II well so is China and Korea but that didn't stop them. It may have been a un action not an actual War but the 55000 Plus military personnel plus way more civilians who got killed would probably not really get the Finesse of the difference. France actually did ask the United States for nuclear or probably Atomic then bombs to use in Vietnam we said no. As for it's spreading the war to where? Russia is not going to get involved and what we did was set a precedence that's it you can basically attack US troops and allies wherever they want and you're home free on the best weapon we had at the time. It's really not the fault of the United States that China at the time had very paranoid leadership it seems to be something that they give you with Communism look at Russia. Last but not least I'm not in favor of using nuclear weapons but by not using them we have sentenced the people in North Korea to a life of unimaginable Horrors that would make the atomic bomb look like a firecracker in comparison. It's like the people who are against using the atomic bombs on Japan well if you're going to start a war you better be ready for the worst that your victims can dish out because that's exactly what they're going to do. I really get tired of countries that bitch and moan all the time that I attacked country a and then they use all these smart weapons and high explosives are killing civilians well you shouldn't have attacked them in the first place that you wouldn't have that problem. Had we used them bear would have been a lot less proxy wars in the next 30 Years.
 

Marc

Donor
I think a construct could be developed that restricts nuclear warfare and general hostilities to Korea/Manchuria/Japan. Working on the hypothesis that Stalin would want a major strategic victory over the US, but not an all out war. A "limited" nuclear conflict - utterly tragic, utterly - but still within reach of plausibility, if you think on it.
A deeply ironic thought came to me - such a war might actually sober up the human race before Armageddon...
 
The USSR has a handful of bombs in 1950-53, and their B-29 knockoff in limited numbers (their equivalent of silverplate models). I will give you that one of those could deliver a surprise attack to Japan, or even a one way to Alaska or possibly Seattle. Pulling such an attack off after any war started would be very difficult. If the Soviets do that, say hit a US base in Japan, you can pretty much guarantee that Vladivostok and Petropavlosk will go up in smoke, and very likely a city or two especially if there is a Siberian RR choke point in Siberia. If a US city is attacked in a Pearl Harbor scenario (surprise, no DOW), there will be a lot of smoking holes in the USSR. Stalin knows this and while he might try re-blockading Berlin, starting a war with the USA where at most he takes out one US city while his eventually get it - some right away, some later, is a bonehead move he won't pull.
 
The USSR has a handful of bombs in 1950-53, and their B-29 knockoff in limited numbers (their equivalent of silverplate models). I will give you that one of those could deliver a surprise attack to Japan, or even a one way to Alaska or possibly Seattle. Pulling such an attack off after any war started would be very difficult. If the Soviets do that, say hit a US base in Japan, you can pretty much guarantee that Vladivostok and Petropavlosk will go up in smoke, and very likely a city or two especially if there is a Siberian RR choke point in Siberia. If a US city is attacked in a Pearl Harbor scenario (surprise, no DOW), there will be a lot of smoking holes in the USSR. Stalin knows this and while he might try re-blockading Berlin, starting a war with the USA where at most he takes out one US city while his eventually get it - some right away, some later, is a bonehead move he won't pull.

Extra bonus: US may have had (three or four) experimental (but operational?) ICBMs at this point, though perhaps not enough to mount more than the weakest available warhead to. That would be a nasty surprise for Moscow if true.
 

Marc

Donor
The USSR has a handful of bombs in 1950-53, and their B-29 knockoff in limited numbers (their equivalent of silverplate models). I will give you that one of those could deliver a surprise attack to Japan, or even a one way to Alaska or possibly Seattle. Pulling such an attack off after any war started would be very difficult. If the Soviets do that, say hit a US base in Japan, you can pretty much guarantee that Vladivostok and Petropavlosk will go up in smoke, and very likely a city or two especially if there is a Siberian RR choke point in Siberia. If a US city is attacked in a Pearl Harbor scenario (surprise, no DOW), there will be a lot of smoking holes in the USSR. Stalin knows this and while he might try re-blockading Berlin, starting a war with the USA where at most he takes out one US city while his eventually get it - some right away, some later, is a bonehead move he won't pull.

Think more tactical, since the opening premise is. Say, the 7th division is destroyed in response to McArthur's first use of nuclear weapons*. The message is bloodily obvious - we're not talking World War 3, but we are talking about equivalence. Is it really likely that we are going to escalate by dropping on a major Pacific Soviet city in response?
(Actually, we might, if MacArthur had his way to begin with.)
And, curious - does anyone really know how hard our intelligence was on the Russian nuclear arsenal circa 1950-1951? Not what we've subsequently guesstimated, but what would be actually discussed in the Oval office?

* In that circumstance, a good friend of mine wouldn't have been born; his father was leading a platoon in the 7th, then. Alternate history, at least in the 20th century really is personal...
 
Last edited:
First of all the fighting didn't just Peter out we have a armistice which is normally used to do a peace treaty it how do you get a peace treaty if North Korea and China doesn't want one. You mentioned that Russia would not have invaded Europe because they in Eastern Europe was still recovering from World War II well so is China and Korea but that didn't stop them. It may have been a un action not an actual War but the 55000 Plus military personnel plus way more civilians who got killed would probably not really get the Finesse of the difference. France actually did ask the United States for nuclear or probably Atomic then bombs to use in Vietnam we said no. As for it's spreading the war to where? Russia is not going to get involved and what we did was set a precedence that's it you can basically attack US troops and allies wherever they want and you're home free on the best weapon we had at the time. It's really not the fault of the United States that China at the time had very paranoid leadership it seems to be something that they give you with Communism look at Russia. Last but not least I'm not in favor of using nuclear weapons but by not using them we have sentenced the people in North Korea to a life of unimaginable Horrors that would make the atomic bomb look like a firecracker in comparison. It's like the people who are against using the atomic bombs on Japan well if you're going to start a war you better be ready for the worst that your victims can dish out because that's exactly what they're going to do. I really get tired of countries that bitch and moan all the time that I attacked country a and then they use all these smart weapons and high explosives are killing civilians well you shouldn't have attacked them in the first place that you wouldn't have that problem. Had we used them bear would have been a lot less proxy wars in the next 30 Years.

they fought to have that government last I checked.. who am I to judge. I don't pee in their back yard.. don't pee in mine.. merry Christmas.

Okay .. so .. like .. The USA and the west were not highly standoffish from the get go on communism. we of course went all out to be buddies with red china right? same with Hanoi? or Castro? or others when they came calling correct? uhm let me get this straight. since I missed he part where the USA was like trying to be buddies during this time frame with anyone communist. it wasn't until Nixon went to china and told them.. yo.. we can make lots of money that the tone changed.

Paranoid.. do you blame them? look at the history
the British
the French
the Portuguese
the Russians
the Japanese

hell I would be paranoid too.

as for the end of world war II .. I prefer to let history be the judge, but condoning the murder of civilians is not one of my stronger suites. no problem with war and bombs and bullets.. my problem is that the atomic/nuclear and hydrogen bombs are equal opportunity mass destruction devices, as is fire bombing and chemical warfare .. where do you draw the line.. that's a great question. you can stop dropping single bombs on a city, you can stop shooting your gun.. you only need one atomic bomb.


as for the French .. thank god we did say no.. the USA looked stupid enough as is in Vietnam.. in someone else's civil war, supporting a dictator in the south .. colonialism ..

I get it, we had the chance to use over whelming power. we didn't. hell in 1990 we could have again. then again in 2001 we could have, yet we are still in a quagmire 18 years later, and what would the bomb decide except that we can kill lots of people at one time and make the rest of the world fear us like some raving maniac.
 
they fought to have that government last I checked.. who am I to judge. I don't pee in their back yard.. don't pee in mine.. merry Christmas.

Okay .. so .. like .. The USA and the west were not highly standoffish from the get go on communism. we of course went all out to be buddies with red china right? same with Hanoi? or Castro? or others when they came calling correct? uhm let me get this straight. since I missed he part where the USA was like trying to be buddies during this time frame with anyone communist. it wasn't until Nixon went to china and told them.. yo.. we can make lots of money that the tone changed.

Paranoid.. do you blame them? look at the history
the British
the French
the Portuguese
the Russians
the Japanese

hell I would be paranoid too.

as for the end of world war II .. I prefer to let history be the judge, but condoning the murder of civilians is not one of my stronger suites. no problem with war and bombs and bullets.. my problem is that the atomic/nuclear and hydrogen bombs are equal opportunity mass destruction devices, as is fire bombing and chemical warfare .. where do you draw the line.. that's a great question. you can stop dropping single bombs on a city, you can stop shooting your gun.. you only need one atomic bomb.


as for the French .. thank god we did say no.. the USA looked stupid enough as is in Vietnam.. in someone else's civil war, supporting a dictator in the south .. colonialism ..

I get it, we had the chance to use over whelming power. we didn't. hell in 1990 we could have again. then again in 2001 we could have, yet we are still in a quagmire 18 years later, and what would the bomb decide except that we can kill lots of people at one time and make the rest of the world fear us like some raving maniac.
Yes a percentage of them did fight for that government it was far from a hundred I don't even think it was 50 percent however had you said this government's going to be full of paranoid people I doubt they would have got very much support. I never said either way whether the United States was helpful to upcoming communist countries or not that's not the point you're trying to make it the point but it's not. So I guess United States should be paranoid to we were attacked or had War declare on us by the British Mexico Japan Germany Italy Austria hungry Vichy France here's one it's ironic red China but we did not elect very many paranoid presidents and they didn't do near the damage like communist countries of had. I never said it was a good idea to let friends have them in fact I made a good point that it was for the best that we didn't. And by reading yours you appear to be one of the apologist for the US using two atom bombs on Japan. Come by and they did not kill as many as 1 bombing raid on Tokyo by conventional bombs. You seem to have a problem with what war is war is countries attacking other countries and those countries fighting for their lives. So do I want to risk up to a million casualties to invade Japan the same people who used pows as test subjects in there in human experiments and attacked us or do I want to in the war quickly and say the United States lives and a lot of Japanese lies cuz they were at the and would not have probably surrendered for anything less than we gave them. Trying to compare semi recent dates we could have used full military power is kind of a strong man it's not the same situation is not the same world and the American people are not the same we spent five years fighting for our lives to get rid of Japanese among others involvement in the Pacific and attacked us. People I talk to are really thinking that we had a good chance of losing the public with her were really told that we didn't but I don't think we knew for a while the government that is that we wouldn't lose. So it goes back to my original statement if you're going to be a big bully and smack other countries around if you get your head handed to you and a hat don't be surprised you asked for it. As an example if we had Lost World War II the American people had supported it greatly they would have paid the consequences. It's a shame they don't have a time machines I'd like to send everybody that thinks Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong back to the Olympic invasions and see if you still think that when you have old men women and children who can barely stand up charging you with strap-on bombs and sharp sticks cuz that's what their country has came to and what few pieces of military equipment they had left like planes they were using as kamikazes. Can't change history and that is an unfortunate fact but the war with Japan I don't think could be changed much without a very great cost of the United States much more than we actually did which was high
 
In 1951/52 the USSR cannot deliver nuclear weapons to the USA. Maybe, just maybe, they might be able to drop one in Europe. While the conventional forces of the USSR could make progress in Europe, this WWIII would mean a lot of cities in the USSR get hit, and only 5 years (or less) after communist governments were installed in Eastern Europe, those populations will be quite restive - there were still partisan bands in the Ukraine and elsewhere in 1950 to be the sparks.

By 1954, the USSR had 10, yes Ten Tu-4A B-29 'Silverplate' copies that were capable of dropping an Atomic Bomb, with many more Tu-4s that could have been reworked, if given time. The US did not know this at the time.

Here were the warhead counts, US USSR
1950 369 5
1951 640 25
1952 1,005 50
1953 1,436 120
1954 2,063 150

At this time, the USSR was developing physically smaller bombs that could be carried by other aircraft.


In 1954, SAC had 209 B-36, 795 B-47, and 78 B-50

The USSR knew that starting WWIII would be a terrible idea

Exactly. His plan was to drop enough bombs along the Chinese-North Korean border to make Korea impenetrable to Moa's forces

In the July 1950 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, there was an Article on using nuclear waste mixed with metallic particles, that could theoretically be used as an area denial weapon charmingly called 'Death Sand' that could be spread/dropped by aircraft

 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm going to repeat my question, since everyone is talking about precedents this would set and such:

Assuming the US uses them to end the war in control of all Korea and the USSR does not escalate until there is a cent balance, when is the first occasion for the Soviets to use them?

In the meantime does the US have other ocassions to use them?

What about Britain or France using them?

Or Israel or China?
 
If the USA uses nukes during the Korean War, it is likely that somebody else will use them in the future. It is also more likely that more states will want to have them. Who uses them depends on the circumstances. Atomic weapons would not really have helped the French in Indochina - even if they salvage Dien Bien Phu, they are going to exit Vietnam. Would they have helped in Malaya, against the Mau-Mau? Actually in many insurgencies, Vietnam, Malaya, Afghanistan (Soviets) chemical weapons would be more "useful" than nukes. Where you are more likely to see nukes is between second/third tier states who both have them.
 
Top