Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Korea and the A-Bomb
Topic Started: Apr 15 2011, 12:55 AM (300 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
One of the reasons given for not using the atomic bomb in Korea in 1951 was the fear that it would invite Soviet retaliation, rapidly escalating a limited conflict into WWIII.

I'll confess my ignorance of the political calculations of the time, but in view of the USSR's limited nuclear production capacity the first few years after Joe-1, and its lack of long-range delivery methods, how likely was this scenario, in retrospect? Even if it had led to WWIII wouldn't it have resulted in far more damage, proportionally, to the USSR than to the United States and NATO members? If so, how much of the decision was based on overestimation of Soviet capability and how much was based on a desire to avoid more destruction in Europe so soon after WWII?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The threat was not so much to the continental US, but to forward bases, particularly the United Kingdom. A good picture of the mindset and expected course of action can be deduced from Dropshot, which is mostly available online.

One reason why a-bombs were held back from Korea is that they were all being reserved for the real war, with most targets in European Russia and Siberia.

It wasn't just Europe, but the Middle East and Asia that were projected as being overrun, and with them go the bases that allow the use of medium bombers, which formed the backbone of SAC.

The USSR would have been destroyed as a modern state at the end of such a war - not the smoking, radioactive ruin of the late 50s and early 60s, but good enough. However, it had the capacity to run riot for a while, and take a lot of tottering states down with it, either economically or literally.

A final point to keep in mind is the distinct over-estimation of Soviet capacities and their atomic arsenal by the West. Inaccurate in retrospect, but a real fear of the time.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Interesting about the medium bombers; that was something I was not aware of, but makes sense now that you mention it.

Europe-firsters notwithstanding, to what extent did the US consider using a few atomic bombs in a tactical role? I know Marshall had suggested it as far back as 1945, in the event Japan refused to surrender and Olympic went forward, but it sounds like the primary doctrine of strategic destruction overrode any fair consideration in the postwar years. I suppose it just seems odd because US stockpiles far exceeded those of the Soviet Union's, even with inflated production estimates, so we could afford to 'waste' a few.

I'd be curious to know whether perceptions of Soviet paranoia fit into it. That is, whether US leaders believed it was not simply a case of the USSR having an inferior position, but whether its position was thought good enough internally that Stalin would be willing to initiate global war. Again, the lesson of Japan in WWII.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Re: tactical use.

There was some consideration of using them for the invasion of Japan, as you say, directed at the invasion beaches and immediate area. This was not so much tactical as that grey ground between tactical and strategic - operational, for want of a better word.

However, experience and testing showed that the early weapons were not suited to this type of role, and they were concentrated on strategic military and industrial targets. Only with the likes of the Mark 7 did we see a viable and realistic tactical nuclear weapon.

Soviet paranoia is a good point, but there was a fundamental difference of understanding between the two superpowers, and often they chose the more extreme interpretation of the other's intent and actions, if just in learning from the past.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply