WI: WWIII starts in the Korean War?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman's_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea...th_parallel_.28January_.E2.80.93_June_1951.29

If MacArthur was allowed to nuke the areas in Manchuria (present-day Northeast China), inevitably World War III would start there with the Soviets being prompted to attack NATO In Europe. So how would the conflict develop from there? We know that the US would immediately nuke plenty of Soviet cities in the process but is there more to this hypothesis? I like to know.
 
I'm not sure it would actually work that way. This depends on Stalin willingly escalating hostilities in retaliation for China getting nuked. But that means accepting a nuclear exchange where the US still has a massive advantage in the size of their arsenal. It only makes sense if he saw the use of nukes against China as a prelude for an attack on him, and as paranoid as he was, I still don't think he'd reach that conclusion. Abandoning the Chinese to their own devices seems like the more likely response.
 
Abandoning the Chinese to their own devices seems like the more likely response.

Given that Mao is stated to have called Stalin a coward - at meetings, in front of numerous witnesses - for not being willing to start a nuclear war with the US this seems very likely to me. They were rivals with clashing interpretations of Marxism and then there are the culture clashes and the Chinese claims on millions of square miles of Soviet territory...

Assuming, as stated, that Stalin does not see this as a preparation for war against him then letting the US take Mao and Co down a peg or two would be in Stalin's interests. Or at least not enough against his interests to voluntarily have atom bombs going off in Soviet territory.
 
Given that Mao is stated to have called Stalin a coward - at meetings, in front of numerous witnesses - for not being willing to start a nuclear war with the US this seems very likely to me. They were rivals with clashing interpretations of Marxism and then there are the culture clashes and the Chinese claims on millions of square miles of Soviet territory...

Assuming, as stated, that Stalin does not see this as a preparation for war against him then letting the US take Mao and Co down a peg or two would be in Stalin's interests. Or at least not enough against his interests to voluntarily have atom bombs going off in Soviet territory.
IDK about Stalin throwing China under the US bus since both the USSR and the PRC signed a friendship treaty that basically would be a foundation for a Sino-Soviet alliance in the event of war against the West:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Alliance_and_Mutual_Assistance

If Stalin were to abandon China, then it would damage his reputation among his fans (not that his purges and totalitarianism stopped him before), so the only way for him to do this shamelessly is to not have the treaty exist prior to the Korean War.
 
IDK about Stalin throwing China under the US bus since both the USSR and the PRC signed a friendship treaty that basically would be a foundation for a Sino-Soviet alliance in the event of war against the West:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Treaty_of_Friendship,_Alliance_and_Mutual_Assistance

If Stalin were to abandon China, then it would damage his reputation among his fans (not that his purges and totalitarianism stopped him before), so the only way for him to do this shamelessly is to not have the treaty exist prior to the Korean War.

That wiki article isn't too specific, but treaties of alliance usually have an escape clause in that they specifically guarantee against attack. If this one's like most, then Stalin can argue that Mao attacked the Americans, so he's under no obligation to defend them.
 
That wiki article isn't too specific, but treaties of alliance usually have an escape clause in that they specifically guarantee against attack. If this one's like most, then Stalin can argue that Mao attacked the Americans, so he's under no obligation to defend them.
Hm sure, but I'm not asking if Stalin can back Mao (let's say he does for argument's sake), rather I'm asking how a WWIII would develop from MacArthur's poor judgment.
 
Hm sure, but I'm not asking if Stalin can back Mao (let's say he does for argument's sake), rather I'm asking how a WWIII would develop from MacArthur's poor judgment.

Well, the doctrine of American forces at the time involved liberal use of nuclear weapons to make up for weakness in conventional forces. I don't know exactly how many nukes we had at the time, though, so I assume that tactical use would be seen as a higher priority than destroying Soviet cities. Fucking up their rear area is a hollow victory if the Soviets still manage to get up to the Channel.
 
Well, the doctrine of American forces at the time involved liberal use of nuclear weapons to make up for weakness in conventional forces. I don't know exactly how many nukes we had at the time, though, so I assume that tactical use would be seen as a higher priority than destroying Soviet cities. Fucking up their rear area is a hollow victory if the Soviets still manage to get up to the Channel.
I'm quite aware the US would use nuclear weapons right off the bat somehow as I have mentioned before, since this is the 50's and not the 80's where nukes are usually like last resort stuff that can supposedly destroy the world (at least in the eyes of those that don't drink the "WWIII=Threads" kool-aid like myself).

But now that you mention it, there were plans to target plenty of cities and areas in the Eastern bloc and China that were declassified just almost a year ago, though they were made for the second half of the 50's than the first half but still suitable nevertheless:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/
 
I'm quite aware the US would use nuclear weapons right off the bat somehow as I have mentioned before, since this is the 50's and not the 80's where nukes are usually like last resort stuff that can supposedly destroy the world (at least in the eyes of those that don't drink the "WWIII=Threads" kool-aid like myself).

But now that you mention it, there were plans to target plenty of cities and areas in the Eastern bloc and China that were declassified just almost a year ago, though they were made for the second half of the 50's than the first half but still suitable nevertheless:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/

Here's a map made in September 1945 (!) showing targets in the USSR and Manchuria.

Here's a presentation given by SAC in 1950. It includes a couple of maps of targets.

While the results wouldn't be as apocalyptic as the 1956 list, tens of millions of Russians and Chinese would have undoubtedly died.
 
In 1951/52 the Soviets had limited numbers of nukes compared to the USA and only their copies of the B-29 could carry them. US nukes could be carried by smaller aircraft. Getting B-29s or B-36s deep in to Soviet territory would be risky early on however hitting WP transit nodes and places like Leningrad, Vladivostok, Sevastopol should be doable. Stalin was a lot of things, but he was actually not much of a risk taker. The guarantee of taking hits on Russian cities, the uncertainties of a campaign in Europe to protect Mao is pretty unlikely (in spite of the Turtledove books). Remember in 51/52 Russia has not finished rebuilding from WWII, and the WP countries are even further behind in repairing damage (goodies go to the USSR first). Assuming Stalin does this, it is bad for everyone involved, although the USA suffers the least the USSR may get lucky and hit a few US cities on 1-way missions. I can see the war ending with Russia back behind the 1939 borders, I would imagine that China takes some serious hits and may break up with warloads and Chiang taking back part of the mainland.
 
Top