Nagasaki and Hiroshima are infamous in the minds of the globe now. Symbols, of the only two uses of nuclear bombs in an act of battle.
Thanks to M.A.D., it stayed like this. Yet... There was a time, in the 1950s, where the use of the nuke was still up to debate For some, atomic bombs could be seen as a legitimate strategy in war.
Which is specifically what General Douglas MacArthur wanted to apply them for, once the Chinese attacked, while the Korean War.
The public fight over this idea leads to Truman infamously firing him. China was never nuked, and the war was eventually a stalemate. But still, the very concept of this idea is fascinating.
What if America really DID drop the nuclear bomb during the battle? What if the U.S had nuked China?
First off, historical context. When Korea was separated from Japan, it was divided between the Soviets and Americans.
The Communist administration in the North, the non-Communist power in the South. The plan was ultimately to reunify, but like everything in the Cold War, this didn't work out.
In 1950, Kim Il Sung (our Dear Leader) started surprise aggression against the South, to unify the country.
More Read: What If The Cold War Didn't Happen?
The Ameria then lead a U.N. Peacekeeping Force, to go fight back the North Koreans. Long story short, in just several months, the U.S. and South were capable to defeat the North Koreans.
Seoul was devastated but liberated, and Pyongyang was taken. Pushing the North, all the way up, to the Chinese Boundary.
China saw this as a threat to their own Defense and began secretly shifting troops to the border. In November 1950, Chinese soldiers passed the border in secret and attacked.
The entire U.N. Peacekeeping Force retreated to the 38th Parallel, where they were capable to prevent the Chinese advance.
But, the destruction was done. Enraged so much that the Chinese had done this, MacArthur began looking for ANY alternative to beat the Chinese.
One of which, was atomic weapons. At the beginning of the battle, Truman himself said that "every weapon in the arsenal are considered". Including the bomb.
Trending Now : What if Reagan Was Never President?
This opinion, however, changed over the months. By 1951, however, MacArthur still wanted to utilize atomic weapons.
Truman didn't, because he worried to escalate the battle for something he saw unnecessary, compared to Europe. While many at the time did drive the plan around, MacArthur pushed the plan forward.
So... what if in this alternate scenario, Truman really listened to MacArthur?
No matter how unreliable could have been, what if the United States permit MacArthur all the tactical nukes he desired against the Chinese, and the U.S. nuked China, during the Korean War?
In this scenario, MacArthur's demand for 50 Atomic Bombs is supported by all sections of the U.S. government required to approve it.
Be it Truman, or the Joint Chiefs. Do we immediately see 50 Hiroshima's?
No. MacArthur didn't desire to use atomic weapons to wipe out the Chinese in a nuclear genocide. He was a tactician and wanted to utilize the nukes against Chinese military targets in Manchuria, over the Yalu River.
Power Plants, Air Strips, Bases, anything that reduced the Chinese war energy. He wanted to generate a sea of irradiated Cobalt, stretching the border, that would stop the Chinese from even passing into Korea. His words. And in the scenario, this plan is placed into motion.
In 1951, the United States escalates the Korean War, by unleashing Tactical Nuclear Bombings over the boundary with China.
B-29s are fitted with air-burst nuclear bombs and fly over into Manchuria. The purpose is to build such a radioactive sea, that the Chinese couldn't pass into Korea for 60 years.
As any person in the 21st Century would think, this plan would cause some immediate and serious problems. And you, person, would be right!
Not even going into the fact that American air abilities would be stretched to their absolute limit, in such an action. But as well, that critical air domination that us ground forces required in the exact combat would be diverted all the way to the North, for at least a several days.
Because of the method of 50 atomic bombings, it's a slow, drawn-out process, as B-29s, however, we may have, would fly over, drop their bomb, and fly back.
All across the Korean border. By the span of 2 or 3 days, Korea is cut off from China. So... America used nuclear weapons in a conventional war. Yay.
MacArthur guessed that the Soviets would be so shocked by America's display of raw atomic power, that they would move down.
More : What if the United States Didn't Exist?
China would retreat, and be beaten. And America would be victorious in battle. The world and everyone would admittedly be shocked.
Not because of America's dynamism, but because the United States escalated a small foreign battle, by glassing China with atomic bombs, and creating a radioactive wasteland.
America does certainly succeed in the Korean war, as China's troops are cut off and ultimately destroyed within the peninsula.
The U.S. pushes up and all of Korea is united under a non-Communist power. The fight, in all respects, is over.
It's pretty much the global equivalent of taking out a grenade during a little league hockey brawl. And, just like the grenade, the action vastly overshadows the real conflict.
This ramification makes the Korean War the most prominent battle in human history.
Why is this such an issue? In our timeline, the raw power of the atomic bomb was so dangerous, those in government realized it could only be used in the direst situations.
Eventually, the bomb became so strong, so dangerous, that no circumstances, except WWIII, called for an atomic weapon ever to be used. And so the Cold War, while loaded with tension, resulted in no battle.
Because both sides realized... it wouldn't be worth it. In the early 1950s, the bomb was still in its infancy.
It was small enough, and there were so few, that nuclear war destroying the world, wasn't a real possibility.
Mutually Assured Destruction, wasn't really a matter. This was a moment of moral questions.
How do we wield this innovative weapon? Do we apply it like any other tool of battle to achieve strategic advantages? and Tactically ruin soldieries in a potential war? or do we realize that if we apply this weapon, our opponents have an excuse to use it too?
It's like when one side used Mustard Gas for the first time in the battle. Yes, it was an instant tactical advantage... but don't be surprised if the opponent innovates, and applies it against you too... It's Pandora's Box.
Promoting Nuclear Force by bombing Manchuria 50 times because of a foreign Civil War, sets a critical new precedent.
The atomic bomb to some was more than a weapon of war, but to others, it had clear tactical advantages. And that's all they saw.
In this alternate timeline, the Soviet Union is completely terrified about what could possibly happen. Since we all know Russia, we know they traditionally don't take threats very kindly.
The United States has displayed it will use its atomic arsenal on a whim in a very small scale battle. And not even on the Superpower.
So it's only valid for the Soviets to understand the U.S. would require even less of a reason to use it on their mortal enemy.
The U.S.S.R. So... we have two conditions that could happen.
One: China and the Soviet Union quickly escalate the war following the bombings.
The Korean War is just the first stage of World War III. For now, its a conventional battle, with occasional atomic bombardments against troops in Europe.
But... long story short, it escalates, and we all die as atomic technology progresses, finishing cities before both atomic powers obliterate each other.
Two: The Soviets don't reach by declaring battle. But instead use this as an excuse for their own interests, using nuclear weapons against enemies in Central Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.
The idea surrounding atomic bombs isn't that they can damage the whole world, but that there will be some instances where using them is useful.
This concept surrounding atomic bombs, unsurprisingly, isn't the most steady. For you know, Living. So... this might escalate into WWIII, later down the line.
Say for a Cuban Missile Crisis, or another alternate crisis, that both parties might think a nuke would be a right idea.
Because of the Americans in Korea. Either way, its extremely unlikely humanity would remain the 20th Century if MacArthur had destroyed China.
We would have accomplished the war, but we would have unlocked Pandora's box in the process. Was MacArthur a fool?
Of course not. He was a war star, a General, and his decisions reach America to victory in the Pacific. But. He was stubborn.
And as anyone dealing with modern technology, misunderstood the implications that applying nuclear bombs would have on future generations.
He just saw success. Today in the 21st Century, we can sit and laugh at the concept of MacArthur's But, this was really a general idea between many in the military and government of the first '50s.
Truman even said, "no options were off the table" at the start of the war. Thank God they never did it and saw what would have happened.
My point is it's always simple to poke fun when we understand the ramifications of future decades.
Anyway, what do you think would have happened? This is simply one scenario out of the countless potentialities. It's always fun to theorize. (Seriously?)
Thanks to M.A.D., it stayed like this. Yet... There was a time, in the 1950s, where the use of the nuke was still up to debate For some, atomic bombs could be seen as a legitimate strategy in war.
Which is specifically what General Douglas MacArthur wanted to apply them for, once the Chinese attacked, while the Korean War.
Watch What if America Had Nuked China?
The public fight over this idea leads to Truman infamously firing him. China was never nuked, and the war was eventually a stalemate. But still, the very concept of this idea is fascinating.
What if America really DID drop the nuclear bomb during the battle? What if the U.S had nuked China?
First off, historical context. When Korea was separated from Japan, it was divided between the Soviets and Americans.
The Communist administration in the North, the non-Communist power in the South. The plan was ultimately to reunify, but like everything in the Cold War, this didn't work out.
In 1950, Kim Il Sung (our Dear Leader) started surprise aggression against the South, to unify the country.
More Read: What If The Cold War Didn't Happen?
Seoul was devastated but liberated, and Pyongyang was taken. Pushing the North, all the way up, to the Chinese Boundary.
China saw this as a threat to their own Defense and began secretly shifting troops to the border. In November 1950, Chinese soldiers passed the border in secret and attacked.
 |
| What if America Had Nuked China? |
The entire U.N. Peacekeeping Force retreated to the 38th Parallel, where they were capable to prevent the Chinese advance.
But, the destruction was done. Enraged so much that the Chinese had done this, MacArthur began looking for ANY alternative to beat the Chinese.
One of which, was atomic weapons. At the beginning of the battle, Truman himself said that "every weapon in the arsenal are considered". Including the bomb.
Trending Now : What if Reagan Was Never President?
Truman didn't, because he worried to escalate the battle for something he saw unnecessary, compared to Europe. While many at the time did drive the plan around, MacArthur pushed the plan forward.
So... what if in this alternate scenario, Truman really listened to MacArthur?
No matter how unreliable could have been, what if the United States permit MacArthur all the tactical nukes he desired against the Chinese, and the U.S. nuked China, during the Korean War?
In this scenario, MacArthur's demand for 50 Atomic Bombs is supported by all sections of the U.S. government required to approve it.
Be it Truman, or the Joint Chiefs. Do we immediately see 50 Hiroshima's?
No. MacArthur didn't desire to use atomic weapons to wipe out the Chinese in a nuclear genocide. He was a tactician and wanted to utilize the nukes against Chinese military targets in Manchuria, over the Yalu River.
Power Plants, Air Strips, Bases, anything that reduced the Chinese war energy. He wanted to generate a sea of irradiated Cobalt, stretching the border, that would stop the Chinese from even passing into Korea. His words. And in the scenario, this plan is placed into motion.
In 1951, the United States escalates the Korean War, by unleashing Tactical Nuclear Bombings over the boundary with China.
B-29s are fitted with air-burst nuclear bombs and fly over into Manchuria. The purpose is to build such a radioactive sea, that the Chinese couldn't pass into Korea for 60 years.
As any person in the 21st Century would think, this plan would cause some immediate and serious problems. And you, person, would be right!
Not even going into the fact that American air abilities would be stretched to their absolute limit, in such an action. But as well, that critical air domination that us ground forces required in the exact combat would be diverted all the way to the North, for at least a several days.
Because of the method of 50 atomic bombings, it's a slow, drawn-out process, as B-29s, however, we may have, would fly over, drop their bomb, and fly back.
All across the Korean border. By the span of 2 or 3 days, Korea is cut off from China. So... America used nuclear weapons in a conventional war. Yay.
MacArthur guessed that the Soviets would be so shocked by America's display of raw atomic power, that they would move down.
More : What if the United States Didn't Exist?
China would retreat, and be beaten. And America would be victorious in battle. The world and everyone would admittedly be shocked.
Not because of America's dynamism, but because the United States escalated a small foreign battle, by glassing China with atomic bombs, and creating a radioactive wasteland.
America does certainly succeed in the Korean war, as China's troops are cut off and ultimately destroyed within the peninsula.
The U.S. pushes up and all of Korea is united under a non-Communist power. The fight, in all respects, is over.
It's pretty much the global equivalent of taking out a grenade during a little league hockey brawl. And, just like the grenade, the action vastly overshadows the real conflict.
This ramification makes the Korean War the most prominent battle in human history.
Why is this such an issue? In our timeline, the raw power of the atomic bomb was so dangerous, those in government realized it could only be used in the direst situations.
Eventually, the bomb became so strong, so dangerous, that no circumstances, except WWIII, called for an atomic weapon ever to be used. And so the Cold War, while loaded with tension, resulted in no battle.
Because both sides realized... it wouldn't be worth it. In the early 1950s, the bomb was still in its infancy.
It was small enough, and there were so few, that nuclear war destroying the world, wasn't a real possibility.
Mutually Assured Destruction, wasn't really a matter. This was a moment of moral questions.
How do we wield this innovative weapon? Do we apply it like any other tool of battle to achieve strategic advantages? and Tactically ruin soldieries in a potential war? or do we realize that if we apply this weapon, our opponents have an excuse to use it too?
It's like when one side used Mustard Gas for the first time in the battle. Yes, it was an instant tactical advantage... but don't be surprised if the opponent innovates, and applies it against you too... It's Pandora's Box.
Promoting Nuclear Force by bombing Manchuria 50 times because of a foreign Civil War, sets a critical new precedent.
The atomic bomb to some was more than a weapon of war, but to others, it had clear tactical advantages. And that's all they saw.
In this alternate timeline, the Soviet Union is completely terrified about what could possibly happen. Since we all know Russia, we know they traditionally don't take threats very kindly.
The United States has displayed it will use its atomic arsenal on a whim in a very small scale battle. And not even on the Superpower.
So it's only valid for the Soviets to understand the U.S. would require even less of a reason to use it on their mortal enemy.
The U.S.S.R. So... we have two conditions that could happen.
One: China and the Soviet Union quickly escalate the war following the bombings.
The Korean War is just the first stage of World War III. For now, its a conventional battle, with occasional atomic bombardments against troops in Europe.
But... long story short, it escalates, and we all die as atomic technology progresses, finishing cities before both atomic powers obliterate each other.
Two: The Soviets don't reach by declaring battle. But instead use this as an excuse for their own interests, using nuclear weapons against enemies in Central Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.
The idea surrounding atomic bombs isn't that they can damage the whole world, but that there will be some instances where using them is useful.
This concept surrounding atomic bombs, unsurprisingly, isn't the most steady. For you know, Living. So... this might escalate into WWIII, later down the line.
Say for a Cuban Missile Crisis, or another alternate crisis, that both parties might think a nuke would be a right idea.
Because of the Americans in Korea. Either way, its extremely unlikely humanity would remain the 20th Century if MacArthur had destroyed China.
We would have accomplished the war, but we would have unlocked Pandora's box in the process. Was MacArthur a fool?
Of course not. He was a war star, a General, and his decisions reach America to victory in the Pacific. But. He was stubborn.
And as anyone dealing with modern technology, misunderstood the implications that applying nuclear bombs would have on future generations.
He just saw success. Today in the 21st Century, we can sit and laugh at the concept of MacArthur's But, this was really a general idea between many in the military and government of the first '50s.
Truman even said, "no options were off the table" at the start of the war. Thank God they never did it and saw what would have happened.
My point is it's always simple to poke fun when we understand the ramifications of future decades.
Anyway, what do you think would have happened? This is simply one scenario out of the countless potentialities. It's always fun to theorize. (Seriously?)
* This article was originally published here
