Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The use of 50 small nuclear warhead in the Korean War

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The use of 50 small nuclear warhead in the Korean War

    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.
    Last edited by xerxes; 09 Sep 07,, 22:52.

  • #2
    Mac was dreaming. He was never allowed nor in a position to request such a strike. He only did so through the newspapers after he got dumped.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by xerxes View Post
      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.
      You are judging history with a modern eye. The use of nukes was a very acceptible form of warfare back then. The US military conducted numerous experiments and exercises to see the effects of nukes. Even in the late 50s it was expected for our soldiers to march into ground zero and retain fighting condition. In fact we have many veterans who were part of that experiment still alive today to talk about it.

      Nukes back then wern't this taboo weapon or dirty word like they are in the liberal circles today. They were just very big bombs and were employed as such.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Tanks and APCs weren't built with NBC gear for nothing. Also you if nukes were used by the United States, it would have likely brought massive Soviet aid to the North, in addition to the already large numbers of Chinese forces. Keep in mind the Soviet Union already had the bomb at this time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Isn't Mao supposed to have been willing to take an attack like that? I seem to remember reading about him(talking about)being willing to accept tens of millions of casualties in a nuclear exchange with the US if things in Korea escalated. I think I read about that in Private Life of Chairman Mao. Not really sure if its accurate though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Eisenhower in his memoirs stated that the NKs and Chinese were stalling on the talks. He let it be known that if there was no progress, he was going to nuke them, including all of China. The talks came back on.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Feanor View Post
              Tanks and APCs weren't built with NBC gear for nothing. Also you if nukes were used by the United States, it would have likely brought massive Soviet aid to the North, in addition to the already large numbers of Chinese forces. Keep in mind the Soviet Union already had the bomb at this time.
              Russia had a few bombs, almost no heavy bombers and thanks to the one thing they did have (spies) knew America was ready willing and able to glass all of the Western and far eastern cities of the USSR. In the early 50's a nuclear war was winnable for the US.

              Eisenhower in his memoirs stated that the NKs and Chinese were stalling on the talks. He let it be known that if there was no progress, he was going to nuke them, including all of China. The talks came back on.
              IIRC it was more back door cloak and dagger. Truman let pictures and film of the Angle Tests out side Las Vegas, NV get leaked to the Soviets. This test was the firing of the worlds first nuclear capable artillery followed by a US infantry division coming up out a trench system and running towards the Mushroom cloud. I am sure we have all seen the footage of the event. Anyway the footage with its very clear meaning scared the bejezzus out of the Reds and they finally agreed to an Armistice.
              Last edited by zraver; 10 Sep 07,, 17:38.

              Comment


              • #8
                No need for strategic bombers when the Soviet border is only 20-30 miles away.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                  You are judging history with a modern eye. The use of nukes was a very acceptible form of warfare back then. The US military conducted numerous experiments and exercises to see the effects of nukes. Even in the late 50s it was expected for our soldiers to march into ground zero and retain fighting condition. In fact we have many veterans who were part of that experiment still alive today to talk about it.

                  Nukes back then wern't this taboo weapon or dirty word like they are in the liberal circles today. They were just very big bombs and were employed as such.
                  Thats was my point ... should have nuke were used to destroy the Communist supply lines and thus decisvely winning the Korean war, they would not have been tabooed today, atleast not the use of tactical nukes.
                  Last edited by xerxes; 11 Sep 07,, 02:43.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    Eisenhower in his memoirs stated that the NKs and Chinese were stalling on the talks. He let it be known that if there was no progress, he was going to nuke them, including all of China. The talks came back on.
                    Big stick diplomacy at its best.
                    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xerxes View Post
                      Thats was my point ... should have nuke were used to destroy the Communist supply lines and thus decisvely winning the Korean war, they would not have been tabooed today, atleast not the use of tactical nukes.
                      Nukes at that stage of the game were not efficient enough for tactical use. You can only use them to attack fixed targets, in which case, they were no more effective or ineffective than a general bombardment.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        Nukes at that stage of the game were not efficient enough for tactical use. You can only use them to attack fixed targets, in which case, they were no more effective or ineffective than a general bombardment.
                        not quite true...

                        1- Nukes could have dropped the spans across the Yalu choking the supply lines from first thaw to first hard freeze. Durign the war the US never managed to keep the bridges shut down. B-29 losses were so heavy that daylight bombing was called off.

                        2- Nuking the airbases would have forced the Migs back reducing their loiter time thus increasing the number of sorties they would have to make to keep the same pressure on the US. If they could not sustain a long range system the F-86 would be even more dominant and US bombers could work deeper in to Korea possibly even China. Once nukes are being popped the idea of a limited war goes out the window so we know targets in China would have opened up. Nukes with their overpressure are devastating to flimsy aircraft and metal absorbs radiation like its going out of style.

                        3- Strikes on Mukden and and Kirin all but cut the road and rail links between the rest of the PRC and Western Manchuria and North Korea. Much the same problem heavy bombers ahve always had with bridges. They are damn hard to hit and very tough. A nuke can drop a bridge fast and keep it dropped.

                        4- Such attacks would cause a diversion of AAA assets away from North Korea giving use tac air an easier time. Once your nuke strieks start marching inland, China has to worry about itself and not the PDRK or the CVA and this would cut AAA support (and all other support as well)

                        5- Psychological advantage, when one side is popping nukes and killing millions and you can't even hit back its demoralizing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          You are judging history with a modern eye. The use of nukes was a very acceptible form of warfare back then. The US military conducted numerous experiments and exercises to see the effects of nukes. Even in the late 50s it was expected for our soldiers to march into ground zero and retain fighting condition. In fact we have many veterans who were part of that experiment still alive today to talk about it.

                          Nukes back then wern't this taboo weapon or dirty word like they are in the liberal circles today. They were just very big bombs and were employed as such.
                          Yep. Everyone should watch "The Atomic Cafe", a black comedy/documentary made up of a lot of the propaganda and newsreels of 1950s America. Very eye-opening, and a great - if narrow - window into an era we can no longer really comprehend.

                          -dale

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X