WI: Nuking Korea

What if America had used nukes in the Korean war?

Plans were drawn up by McArthur I believe to detonate nuclear bombs along the Yalu to stop the Chinese advance. The effects of such an action are scary, the first problem being that nuclear weapons are legitimized and conventional weapons.
 
I don't think to much. The US wins the Korean War.

And yes, Nuclear weapons are to an extent, see as more normal weapons.

But there aren't to many places OTL where it would make sense to use them.

You still never want to use them when someone can respond in kind.


The Cold War rarely went hot after Korea.

Vietnam? Not suited for it.


Neither was Afganistan. For anyone.


Mmm, maybe in a tactic/psychological role in the First Persian Gulf War.

Neutron weapons, of course.

But probably not.
 
Technically they were used. Atomic weapons, both air delivered bombs, and atomic artillery were deployed to Japan, and probablly Formosa. This was done in great secrecy, then carefully revealed to Chinese spys. A portion of the plans for using them were planted with the spies as well. The result was the Chinese begain serious negotiations and making concessions and sticking to agreements in the armistice talks.

True the atomic devices were not detonated, but their deployment to Asia and the revelation of plans to use them did 'encourage' the Chinese to complete a armistice agreement.

Ferhenbach in his history of the Korean War 'This Kind of War' had a few paragraphs describing this. If you search the archives of the Command and Staff College library there are several papers on the subject, and a few books in the Political Science sections of the university libraries.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Vietnam? Not suited for it.

Most of the South Vietnamese government was concentrated in Saigon and the surrounding area. That would be a perfect place to use a nuclear weapon for the North Vietnamese.
 
Most of the South Vietnamese government was concentrated in Saigon and the surrounding area. That would be a perfect place to use a nuclear weapon for the North Vietnamese.

But they didn't have any and they wanted to unite the two countries, nuking the other side isn't the best way to do this, despite what North Korea seems to think.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It would have been a disaster. Not because the U.S. really had to worry about the Soviets responding in kind, at least at the time, but because it would have made Nuclear weapons, well, weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not, IOTL, really weapons in the conventional sense of the word. They are the Monster Behind the Door, That Which can Not be Said. This fact is what prevented at least two exchanges (Cuba 1962, Kargil 1999) and maybe more (October 1973 is the most likely, but there are others) as well as unstoppable proliferation that would have made things unstable to the point of ceertain disaster.
 
I think General Finlay had a timeline called "Outrun My Gun" about a McArthur Presidency which used nukes on china.

I'm not sure I'd have taken such a sanguine view as to the use of nuclear weapons in the Korean war. That kind of crap definitely comes around, and payback's a bitch.

A USSR confronted with an America ready to use Nukes on its doorstep? The Soviets really had no faith in the integrity of the United States. I there's a good chance that things might have escalated then and there. Alternately, an even more paranoid and defensive Soviet Union would have been more desperate to even the odds, and would have been more willing to give credence to Americans initiating a war.... which would have made them much more willing to do a first strike. World War III within 20 or 25 years at the outset. There were a number of potential flashpoints - the Berlin Blockade, Cuba, etc. which could have gone hot, and the altered history would likely have contributed additional flashpoints.

A China which had had nuclear weapons deployed against it.... Well, its unlikely that the Chinese government would have been overthrown. But its much more likely that either the Chinese would draw closer to the Soviets for their nuclear umbrella, rather than breaking away in the subsequent decade... or they would have been far, far, far more aggressive in pursuing and developing a credible nuclear deterrent earlier and much more willing to use it.
 
CalBear is absolutely right. Truman, for all of his faults, deserves a lot of credit for realizing earlier than many did just what these things were, and why they couldn't be treated as just a bigger bomb. Although a normalization of the atom bomb would make for a very interesting timeline.

Edit to Add: Although I don't think WW3 is guaranteed in that situation, although more likely.

And Carl Schwamberger, thank you for the information. I hadn't heard before that we'd leaked the bombs' presence to the Chinese, although it certainly makes sense that we would. Do you remember if the leaks took place under Truman, or was this only after Eisenhower was president?
 
Last edited:
Most of the South Vietnamese government was concentrated in Saigon and the surrounding area. That would be a perfect place to use a nuclear weapon for the North Vietnamese.

Accept that they didn't have nukes.

And that the US would almost certainly retaliate, a LOT.


So, like I said, Vietnam was not suited.
 
It would have been a disaster. Not because the U.S. really had to worry about the Soviets responding in kind, at least at the time, but because it would have made Nuclear weapons, well, weapons.

Nuclear weapons are not, IOTL, really weapons in the conventional sense of the word. They are the Monster Behind the Door, That Which can Not be Said. This fact is what prevented at least two exchanges (Cuba 1962, Kargil 1999) and maybe more (October 1973 is the most likely, but there are others) as well as unstoppable proliferation that would have made things unstable to the point of ceertain disaster.

Or it might have made us serious about stopping nuclear proliferation.

OTL policies are idiotic, "we'll build you reactors if you promise not to use them to make bombs".:eek:
 
There is an argument to be made that a few nuclear weapons might have ended the war with far fewer casualties in @ - a few thousand Vs a couple of million. Whether that is true I can't say, but it is worth thinking about.

What happens after US use of nuclear weapons, well who knows? Perhaps the Soviets try using them in one of their minor conflicts?
 
Or it might have made us serious about stopping nuclear proliferation.

OTL policies are idiotic, "we'll build you reactors if you promise not to use them to make bombs".:eek:

I think you're being a bit harsh on Eisenhower there, and I say that as a guy who is not a fan of Ike at all. Other countries were going to build reactors etc. no matter what we did; Atoms for Peace at least gave us an in to their programs. In particular, encouraging the use of enriched uranium made them dependent on the US for their fuel supply; the gas centrifuge wasn't publicized until the 60s, and at the time the capital cost of gaseous diffusion plants limited them only to major powers. In retrospect, spreading HEU-powered research reactors around was going a bit far, but the general idea was, I think, a wise approach.

There is an argument to be made that a few nuclear weapons might have ended the war with far fewer casualties in @ - a few thousand Vs a couple of million. Whether that is true I can't say, but it is worth thinking about.

Problem is, at least under Truman, the US will only use the bomb after we're well on our way to those million plus casualties. Truman knew damned well what these things were and he wasn't going to use it as long as any other viable option remained to retain South Korea.
 
Top