Everyone here probably knows about mac-arthur involvement in the Korean war. Several years ago while I was reading my very first book on the Korean war, I was really astonished to find out that Macarthur either planned or lobbied (I dont remember) to use 50 small fission bombs to destroy the supply lines in Manchuria.
When one looks at the twin explosion in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their percieved effect (IMO) on ending the war in pacific, one can only be overwhelm with the use of 50 such weapons in the Korean war, which was by all rights a proxy war and not a world war.
Question One: Is the account of using 50 nukes to ravage manchuria a correct number?
Question Two: We do know by today the extent of Stalin's fear of a nuclear-armed America. We also know that Stalin acctually told Kim after the fall of Pyongyang to establish a governemnt-in-exile in Manchuria and to end the war right there. and was it not for the Chinese involvement in the affair it would have most certainly have ended there, with Korea becoming unified under the banner of Seoul. Can we assume that the use of nukes in Manchuria would have hasten the end of conflict without bringing the Soviet Union into a world war. Stalin fear of America was very genuine, the question is how much would have he allowed USSR to be pushed without resorting to force for the loss of prestige. After all, it was Stalin who on the eve of Operation Typhoon attempted to make peace with Fascists. Personnally, i have no doubt that had USSR would not have intervened. The non-conventional military prowess of the Soviet Union was mythical when compared with that of United States.
Question Three: Today, the very idea of using nukes is tabooed (OBL et al. excluded). How would have our attitude be today on the use of nukes, if mac-arthur had his way with Red China in the early 50s.
Question Four: No doubt a decisive victory in Korea that did not morphed into a World War, would have certainly shattered the prestige of the Communist world and erased the mythical belief of a Chinese invasion of Vietnam (during the Vietnam War), should have Westmoreland had captured Hanoi.
When one looks at the twin explosion in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their percieved effect (IMO) on ending the war in pacific, one can only be overwhelm with the use of 50 such weapons in the Korean war, which was by all rights a proxy war and not a world war.
Question One: Is the account of using 50 nukes to ravage manchuria a correct number?
Question Two: We do know by today the extent of Stalin's fear of a nuclear-armed America. We also know that Stalin acctually told Kim after the fall of Pyongyang to establish a governemnt-in-exile in Manchuria and to end the war right there. and was it not for the Chinese involvement in the affair it would have most certainly have ended there, with Korea becoming unified under the banner of Seoul. Can we assume that the use of nukes in Manchuria would have hasten the end of conflict without bringing the Soviet Union into a world war. Stalin fear of America was very genuine, the question is how much would have he allowed USSR to be pushed without resorting to force for the loss of prestige. After all, it was Stalin who on the eve of Operation Typhoon attempted to make peace with Fascists. Personnally, i have no doubt that had USSR would not have intervened. The non-conventional military prowess of the Soviet Union was mythical when compared with that of United States.
Question Three: Today, the very idea of using nukes is tabooed (OBL et al. excluded). How would have our attitude be today on the use of nukes, if mac-arthur had his way with Red China in the early 50s.
Question Four: No doubt a decisive victory in Korea that did not morphed into a World War, would have certainly shattered the prestige of the Communist world and erased the mythical belief of a Chinese invasion of Vietnam (during the Vietnam War), should have Westmoreland had captured Hanoi.
Comment