PDA

View Full Version : The Korean War



Semper Fi
05 Aug 05,, 23:09
Since the Korean War technically never ended and we have a cease fire. Should the US of dropped nuclear bombs on the north?

How good would Korea look now if NK did not exist? The US would have a strong Korea ally and not have a nut with possible nuclear weapons.

giggs88
05 Aug 05,, 23:33
I think we would have faced a "reaction" from the two Communist powers if we had dropped the big one on N. Korea.

Semper Fi
05 Aug 05,, 23:36
The US was already facing a reaction from China. The chinese lost 1 million people trying to defend the north.

Officer of Engineers
05 Aug 05,, 23:55
Since the Korean War technically never ended and we have a cease fire. Should the US of dropped nuclear bombs on the north?

How good would Korea look now if NK did not exist? The US would have a strong Korea ally and not have a nut with possible nuclear weapons.

Best case scenario. Up to 1 million Chinese troops enter North Korea to keep the North Korean refugees in North Korea.

Worst case scenario. 1 million North Korean troops try to smash their way south followed by 10s of millions of refugees into both China and South Korea, surviving any which way they can including begging, borrowing, and stealing, and demanding both Beijing and Seoul to setup a welfare system to support them.

Not a pretty picture for your wish.

Semper Fi
06 Aug 05,, 00:13
Best case scenario. Up to 1 million Chinese troops enter North Korea to keep the North Korean refugees in North Korea.

Worst case scenario. 1 million North Korean troops try to smash their way south followed by 10s of millions of refugees into both China and South Korea, surviving any which way they can including begging, borrowing, and stealing, and demanding both Beijing and Seoul to setup a welfare system to support them.

Not a pretty picture for your wish.

I think you misunderstood me. Should the US of used nuclear weapons on the north 50 years ago? Obvioulsly now it's quite a different story.

Officer of Engineers
06 Aug 05,, 00:24
I think you misunderstood me. Should the US of used nuclear weapons on the north 50 years ago? Obvioulsly now it's quite a different story.

The Soviets would have marched across Europe. The US did not had that many nukes back then.

However, let's assume the US/UN won the Korean War. Best case scenario, you have a banana republic in Korea. Rhee was no democrat.

Semper Fi
06 Aug 05,, 03:41
"Rhee will be killed in a few weeks, when the Korean people find out the truth." -- Gen. MacArthur.

Apperently MacArthur really didn't like him.

Officer of Engineers
06 Aug 05,, 04:53
Like Rhee cared.

scotsboyuk
07 Aug 05,, 18:51
I remember watching a BBC documentary on North Korea once. The reporter managed to get an interview with a North Korean general and he raised the issue of North Korean schools teaching children that the South and America started the Korean War. The general just about exploded and terminated the interview.

Franco Lolan
07 Aug 05,, 19:56
I've read MacArthur's Reminiscences and he posits that if he had been given the authority, he could have bombed the bridges and some supply depots, rail lines, etc in China on the NK border and secured the Korean Peninsula.
How true is this?

Officer of Engineers
09 Aug 05,, 05:40
MacArthur wanted to nuke China.

dalem
09 Aug 05,, 05:54
MacArthur wanted to nuke China.

So did some Senators and Congressmen back home.

-dale

Officer of Engineers
09 Aug 05,, 06:02
So did some Senators and Congressmen back home.

-dale
They were not part of the chain-of-command.

dalem
09 Aug 05,, 11:57
They were not part of the chain-of-command.

Correct.

-dale

sparten
10 Aug 05,, 19:20
IIRC Mac was disgusted by Truman over the Nuke issue, becoz he felt that Truman used it where it was (im Macs opinion) not necessary, japan, yet was dilly dallying in Korea.

Now Col sir, why did Truman not use it? There was certainly no paucity of weapons, and the USSRs ability to retaliate was non-existant (CONUS). And WWII was fresh enough in everyones mind for such an action to be acceptable.

Officer of Engineers
10 Aug 05,, 19:31
Now Col sir, why did Truman not use it? There was certainly no paucity of weapons, and the USSRs ability to retaliate was non-existant (CONUS). And WWII was fresh enough in everyones mind for such an action to be acceptable.

The JCS viewed Korea as an unfavourable terrain for nukes. Korea by the time nukes were threatened was the Stone Age and thus, there was no industries to bomb. The mountains make perfect shielding and while you might get a division here and there, chances are that you would use a nuke to kill a single regiment.

That left China and China was too target rich environment for nukes alone. The JCS viewed that while they can destroy China, they would also use the majority of the nuclear weapons to do so, leaving Europe vulnerable to a Soviet march.

sparten
10 Aug 05,, 19:41
You could have expended just a few, as a sort of shock therepy.

Officer of Engineers
10 Aug 05,, 19:48
This was Stalin you're talking about or at least, the image of Stalin. He wouldn't care what you do to the "gooks" and "*****s" - no insult intended but just making a point on how he viewed his Asian allies.

scotsboyuk
10 Aug 05,, 20:10
@Officer of Enginneers

Or, for that matter, his own people.

Franco Lolan
11 Aug 05,, 03:41
MacArthur wanted to nuke China.

Would the nuking have caused the feared escalation by Soviets into the war or into Europe?

lwarmonger
11 Aug 05,, 04:06
Would the nuking have caused the feared escalation by Soviets into the war or into Europe?

Stalin feared Western domination the same way we feared the reds... and by the time we had gotten into Korea our WWII army had been completely demobilized, so here would have been a good justification in reshape Europe. Conventionally the United States was completely unprepared for a war in Western Europe (what conventional strength we did have had been largely drawn down by a need to reinforce Korea, and both West Germany and France were almost completely incapable of defending themselves... Germany hadn't been remilitarized yet and France was fighting colonial wars in Indo-China and Algeria), and if we were using our nukes on China, the SU would have had a much better chance of shrugging off any we happened to send their way. Of course, at the time of the Korean War, the Soviet Army hadn't been through Zhukov's trimming down process, and their economy hadn't recovered from the war, so it was less capable than it would be in future years too.

sparten
11 Aug 05,, 07:06
I will agree that the fact the WWII army was no more would have bouyed Stalin, but the fact remains he was afraid of the US Nuclear Capability.

Col, IIRC by 1950 all three Midway Class Carriers carried nuclear weapons. While carrier air craft did not have the range of a B-29, from the South China Sea they could attack quite a few targets. LeMays could have kept his weapons for any European Contingency.

Officer of Engineers
11 Aug 05,, 12:23
The US had less than 50 nukes during the Korean War.

sparten
11 Aug 05,, 12:30
I remember 235 in 1949 (when the USSR tested).

Was a carrier attack feasible?

Officer of Engineers
11 Aug 05,, 13:25
You're right. I mixed up my dates. The answer is no. Nukes still had to be bomber carried at that time.

sparten
11 Aug 05,, 14:54
Sir,

USS Franklin D Roosevelt carried Nuclear weapons from 1950 onwards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Franklin_D._Roosevelt_%28CV-42%29

Even strikes along the coast would have "broken the dragons back." Remember the Chinese were involved in some sort of conflict from 1932 onewards. They would have decided that the war was not worth it.

Officer of Engineers
11 Aug 05,, 14:59
Let me check up on the designs and get back to you on how they are delivered.

sparten
11 Aug 05,, 15:03
I would appreciate that sir, I had a lot of arguements with my own hostory Professor over this, he was ex-army like you. He seemed to think that Truman suffered from a guilty conscience from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

TopHatter
11 Aug 05,, 15:59
Let me check up on the designs and get back to you on how they are delivered.

Sir,
This link might be of assistance

(though I'm sure you have your own mail-order catalog handy :redface: )


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

Officer of Engineers
12 Aug 05,, 05:03
My thanks TH. I just remembered where I put it and I did not want to put on the combat vest and standard issue weapon to look for it in the attic.

sparten
12 Aug 05,, 14:23
Looking forward to your reply sir.

Officer of Engineers
12 Aug 05,, 14:34
Within 15 hours. I've got a heavy load today and got to drive #1 Daughter to ballet (no, I DO NOT THINK SHE LOOKS CUTE) this afternoon after work and endure a bunch of kids jumping up and down calling it dancing.

Can't wait until I can get her on some pads and a hockey stick (she's her old man that way - no figure skating for her).

Sorry about the rant, just one of many wars I've lost.

sparten
12 Aug 05,, 14:38
Take your time sir. I am more than familiar with kids plays and dances. My father always had a pained look about hime when he went to one of my sisters recitals. But than he did not want to set my mother off.

TopHatter
12 Aug 05,, 16:58
Within 15 hours. I've got a heavy load today and got to drive #1 Daughter to ballet (no, I DO NOT THINK SHE LOOKS CUTE) this afternoon after work and endure a bunch of kids jumping up and down calling it dancing.

It's OK Sir, we all know that she looks cute, even if you won't admit it.
Just wait until the vultures....erm, boys start circling. That's when you'll need that standard issue weapon.

Speaking of lil cuties, it's a shame that this honey was not available during Korea, had the NCA authorized the release of nuclear weapons.

W-19 "Katie" 16-inch nuclear projectile (15 - 20 Kiloton yield)

You can't exactly shoot one down...though can you can attempt sink the firing platform.

Blademaster
12 Aug 05,, 17:08
Within 15 hours. I've got a heavy load today and got to drive #1 Daughter to ballet (no, I DO NOT THINK SHE LOOKS CUTE) this afternoon after work and endure a bunch of kids jumping up and down calling it dancing.

Can't wait until I can get her on some pads and a hockey stick (she's her old man that way - no figure skating for her).

Sorry about the rant, just one of many wars I've lost.

How old is your daughter now? I thought she was like 2 years old. Man she's way too young to be a ballet dancer.

Officer of Engineers
12 Aug 05,, 17:09
Four

TopHatter
12 Aug 05,, 20:19
Four

Oh dear God....you poor man. If she's 4, then you've already surrendered your sword to her and presented yourself to be wrapped around her finger.... :redface:

dalem
12 Aug 05,, 20:54
Ahh yes, the 16"er.

What would a 20kt warhead do? Isn't that about Hiroshima-sized? Were the shells fused for airburst or impact or either?

-dale

TopHatter
12 Aug 05,, 21:29
Ahh yes, the 16"er.

What would a 20kt warhead do? Isn't that about Hiroshima-sized? Were the shells fused for airburst or impact or either?

-dale

First of all, I screwed up. It was designated W-23 not W-19.

According to the mail-order catalog, it was Mechanical time delay airburst.

Chino
11 Sep 05,, 11:24
The US was already facing a reaction from China. The chinese lost 1 million people trying to defend the north.


First of all, this figure of 1 million Chinese, can you verify it?

Secondly, the Chinese weren't just "trying to defend the North" - they succeeded. That's why we still have a North Korea today.

This "body count" mentality is a too shallow way of looking at events that shape the world. Even if the Chinese did lose a million, that's a drop in the ocean for them. They weren't protecting North Korea - they were protecting China's border and its pride. A million, a few million... wouldn't matter. In the end, they achieved their goals, which was to help maintain North Korea as a buffer state at China's border.

Combloc reactions aside, does the US need nuclear weapons everytime it fights against Asian countries?

Shame:rolleyes:

sparten
11 Sep 05,, 12:12
Agree with you as far as the outcome of Korea.

Nukes could have won the war for the US in 1950/51.