WI Nuclear weapons used in Korean War?

[Lateknight]

What would the effects be if nuclear were used ? There's basically two ways they could have been used in that war on China directly which what MacArthur wanted or used on China's armies when they invaded Korea so what are the separate responses to these actions.

 

[Lateknight]

bump---------------

 

[chris N]

Interesting Question. If the nuclear weapons were uses then the Manchurian Korean border is going to be a mess.. China had no nuclear weapons and Stalin was not about to risk nuclear war with the US. The Soviet leader could not stand Mao. Thus the Korean war might just have come to an end.

 

[asnys]

I think we have to ask how Truman would have decided to employ them. The US, at this point, doesn't have a lot of bombs, and SAC wants them all. Using more then a handful in Korea or China risks weakening the US air campaign against Russia if World War III breaks out, which Truman regarded as a real possibility. So I can see Truman deciding to use one or two as a demonstration, a sign that "if you go any further we'll go all the way". In which case they would probably be deployed against Pyongyang, since this is primarily a symbolic, diplomatic maneuver rather then a military one.

But, if that either didn't work or didn't seem like enough, I don't think Truman would order more nukes used on Korea or China - I think he'd go all the way to bombing Russia. Remember, Truman is thinking in terms of Hitler and Munich. He thinks that South Korea in 1950 is the same as Austria in 1938, and he has to stop Stalin here and now or it won't end until the tanks are in Paris again. If faced with a choice between nuking Russia and losing South Korea, I think he'd decide to nuke Russia, because he'd think it was going to come down to that sooner or later anyway.

 

[takerma]

There got to be a plan somewhere in some drawer with options of nuclear deployment in case all of those division are stuck, surrounded and can't get out.

 

[asnys]

There got to be a plan somewhere in some drawer with options of nuclear deployment in case all of those division are stuck, surrounded and can't get out.

But would those plans actually be enacted?

First, the US arsenal at this point is in the low hundreds, and most - maybe all - of those weapons are Mark 4s: basically Fat Mans with levitated pits and composite cores. That means they're too big to be carried by a tactical aircraft - B-29s and -36s only - and they have a maximum yield of 31 kilotons. A city is a nice, concentrated target where 31 kilotons can do a lot of damage; an army isn't, at least if it's dug in. At this point, "tactical" uses of nuclear weapons meant hitting supply depots and transport hubs in the rear.

Second, a bomb dropped on Korea or China is a bomb that can't be dropped on Russia, and at this point we don't have so many bombs that we can easily spare them. Twenty weapons is a significant percentage of the entire arsenal.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

But would those plans actually be enacted?

First, the US arsenal at this point is in the low hundreds, and most - maybe all - of those weapons are Mark 4s: basically Fat Mans with levitated pits and composite cores. That means they're too big to be carried by a tactical aircraft - B-29s and -36s only - and they have a maximum yield of 31 kilotons. A city is a nice, concentrated target where 31 kilotons can do a lot of damage; an army isn't, at least if it's dug in. At this point, "tactical" uses of nuclear weapons meant hitting supply depots and transport hubs in the rear.

Second, a bomb dropped on Korea or China is a bomb that can't be dropped on Russia, and at this point we don't have so many bombs that we can easily spare them. Twenty weapons is a significant percentage of the entire arsenal.

1) What's the point of having them if you don't use them.
2) What tiny handful of Abombs do the Soviets have at this point?
3) What makes you think the US couldn't ramp up production really quickly if they wanted to?
3a) My recollection is the US had originally been planning on a production rate of 3/month by the end of 1945. Obviously, they slowed it down massively with the end of the war, but 20 bombs would be only 7 months production at that rate. If the Soviets WERE stupid enough to go to WWIII over Korea, they'd lose big time, with their nuclear production centres bombed early, and their production would be minuscule.

In 1950, at the beginning of the Korean war, the US had 299 weapons in her stockpile, the Soviets 5.

In 1955, a few years after the end of the war, the US had 2422, the USSR 200

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country)


The use of a couple of dozen in the Korean War isn't going to affect the US stockpile significantly.

 

[marathag]

I think we have to ask how Truman would have decided to employ them. The US, at this point, doesn't have a lot of bombs, and SAC wants them all. Using more then a handful in Korea or China risks weakening the US air campaign against Russia if World War III breaks out, which Truman regarded as a real possibility.

1950: 369 warheads
1951: 640
1952: 1005
1954: 1436

1954 is when the Soviets were able to weaponize and start mass production of bombs. Only had a handfull of devices before then, and only the Tu-4 Bull (aka B-29) to carry them in

Soviets didn't match US warhead count till 1978, and still were at 50% of the US total in 1972

 

[asnys]

1) What's the point of having them if you don't use them.
2) What tiny handful of Abombs do the Soviets have at this point?

Those are really arguments for hitting the USSR, not for hitting North Korea.

3) What makes you think the US couldn't ramp up production really quickly if they wanted to?
3a) My recollection is the US had originally been planning on a production rate of 3/month by the end of 1945. Obviously, they slowed it down massively with the end of the war, but 20 bombs would be only 7 months production at that rate. If the Soviets WERE stupid enough to go to WWIII over Korea, they'd lose big time, with their nuclear production centres bombed early, and their production would be minuscule.

In 1950, at the beginning of the Korean war, the US had 299 weapons in her stockpile, the Soviets 5.

In 1955, a few years after the end of the war, the US had 2422, the USSR 200

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country)


The use of a couple of dozen in the Korean War isn't going to affect the US stockpile significantly.

The US was ramping up production by this point, as fast as humanly possible. But the problem isn't whether we'll have enough bombs in three years, the problem is whether the Soviet Union will invade Western Europe the day after we nuke Manchuria, which they might well do.

 

[Lateknight]

The US was ramping up production by this point, as fast as humanly possible. But the problem isn't whether we'll have enough bombs in three years, the problem is whether the Soviet Union will invade Western Europe the day after we nuke Manchuria, which they might well do.

What if the U.S were to bomb the invading chinese armies when they where in north korea, what kind of response would that provoke.

 

[marathag]

But would those plans actually be enacted?

First, the US arsenal at this point is in the low hundreds, and most - maybe all - of those weapons are Mark 4s: basically Fat Mans with levitated pits and composite cores. That means they're too big to be carried by a tactical aircraft - B-29s and -36s only - and they have a maximum yield of 31 kilotons.

The US had Little Boy style gun types for Navy use in the Neptune, when they were desperate to get into SAC's territory. They had more cases than cores, though. This lasted till the AJ-1 Savage was in service in 1950 that could carry the implosion bomb

550 Mk4 were made between March '49 to May '51

Mk5 entered stockpiles in May, 1952, and depending on mod, was up to 120kt.

The Mk6, the lightweight high yield Mk4, July 1951. up to 160kt

 

[asnys]

What if the U.S were to bomb the invading chinese armies when they where in north korea, what kind of response would that provoke.

Frankly, I don't know what Stalin, Mao, or Kim would do then. What I'm saying that if Truman thinks he needs to expend that kind of firepower - not just one or two weapons, but a whole mess of them - he's going to go for the jugular, and hit Russia directly.

 

[Lateknight]

Frankly, I don't know what Stalin, Mao, or Kim would do then. What I'm saying that if Truman thinks he needs to expend that kind of firepower - not just one or two weapons, but a whole mess of them - he's going to go for the jugular, and hit Russia directly.

That's another question I had Those bombs weren't that powerful compared to latter ones they blew up a couple cities in WW2 but that point America had burned down lots of cities so why people back then treat them like such a doomsday weapon?

 

[asnys]

That's another question I had Those bombs weren't that powerful compared to latter ones they blew up a couple cities in WW2 but that point America had burned down lots of cities so why people back then treat them like such a doomsday weapon?

Partly because now a single B-29 could do what used to take a thousand of them to do. Partly because it was such a visible discontinuity from what had come before. And partly because the idea of "atomic energy" had been built up in the public perception long before it had ever actually been tapped, going back to the days of radium tonics.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Becuase of the weapon's Doomsday potential, if it were to be used Russia probably retaliates in Europe, which forces the US to escalate by bombing Russia, which results in Russian nukes falling on Britain.

I suppose Truman had a moral bone in his body, because none of this would have a direct effect on the US.

 

[Lateknight]

Becuase of the weapon's Doomsday potential, if it were to be used Russia probably retaliates in Europe, which forces the US to escalate by bombing Russia, which results in Russian nukes falling on Britain.

I suppose Truman had a moral bone in his body, because none of this would have a direct effect on the US.

Would russia really attack europe over china, somehow I doubt that but that's with hindsight back then the soviet union was always good at looking strong like some kind of pufferfish.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Would russia really attack europe over china, somehow I doubt that but that's with hindsight back then the soviet union was always good at looking strong like some kind of pufferfish.

Probably. Russia knows if he lets the US crush their allies in Asia and actually conquer a USSR ally (North Korea), then they lose all credibility with their allies. Chances are the USSR escalates something with a neighbor to test US resolve, such as Turkey, Greece, or West Germany.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Becuase of the weapon's Doomsday potential, if it were to be used Russia probably retaliates in Europe, which forces the US to escalate by bombing Russia, which results in Russian nukes falling on Britain.

All five of them? How many actually get through?

The Soviets had a stockpile of 5 weapons in 1950. How many of those are they going to send to Britain? How many arrive?

I doubt highly that "nukes" (plural) fall on Britain. 1, maybe.

 

[AshiusX]

Even if nukes are used on every major city in Maoist China. What would be the next step? Going in with our buddy Chiang Kai-shek to China so we could restore him to power. Mao would waged a ''people's war'' against the anti communist invading force. Fighting a massive insurgency in a country the size of China is going to be nightmare. They will make Vietnam look like a little picnic . I know Americans who fought in Korea aren't the baby boomers who resented authority and were less keen on accepting communism as a global evil. But even in the 1950s with the red scare at its heights there are limitations.

 

[Lateknight]

Even if nukes are used on every major city in Maoist China. What would be the next step? Going in with our buddy Chiang Kai-shek to China so we could restore him to power. Mao would waged a ''people's war'' against the anti communist invading force. Fighting a massive insurgency in a country the size of China is going to be nightmare. They will make Vietnam look like a little picnic . I know Americans who fought in Korea aren't the baby boomers who resented authority and were less keen on accepting communism as a global evil. But even in the 1950s with the red scare at its heights there are limitations.

Fighting the chinaese in China would be madness, using nukes to keep the chinaese out of Korea know that might work.