[Oxymoron]

What if Truman authorized the use of the Atom Bomb to battle the Chinese. What would have been the potential drawbacks, would Russia go to war with the US for China?

[guzzipat]

What if Truman authorized the use of the Atom Bomb to battle the Chinese. What would have been the potential drawbacks, would Russia go to war with the US for China?

I don't think it was certain that Russia would attack the US if they had nuked China, but it was very strong possibility. Probably too strong for Truman to risk it, would have been a hell of a gamble.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think it unlikely that the USSR would use the nuclear option against the US, unless it were perceived as a 'limited exchange'. The Soviets knew there were at a disadvantage in terms of strategic nuclear warfare in this period (IIRC at best they could bomb the US on a one-way trip...), and probably wouldn't have risked it without being directly threatened. A non-nuclear strategic option was the occupation of West Berlin which would have significant political implications in the NATO countries. The threat of a Soviet response (which would legitimate their entry into peace negotiations), might have actually ended the Korean War sooner, and possibly in a less beneficial manner.

In a broader sense:
- No Sino-Soviet split. The Chinese might have been furious at the lack of Soviet direct intervention, but they would be more dependent of Soviet military aid and a nuclear umbrella.
- Higher probability that nuclear arms would be used in other minor conflicts. After all, a US policy against WMD employment would be hard to enforce if they were the first ones to break the 'rule'.
- Nuclear weapons would have been supplied to satelite states (although perhaps still under 'home' control). After all, it would notionally guarantee their safety against nuclear attack under the prevailing MAD doctrine.
- By association, Cuba would still get its missiles, but might get to keep them once found. This could have changed the balance of the Cold War.

[Nattering Nabob]

During the fifties America had a substantial nuclear edge on the Soviets so I doubt that a nuclear exchange between the two would have taken place over China...

That said, The Soviets would have been forever paranoid after America nuked one of it's neighbors and who knows what would have happened in the future.

[R_G]

Yeah I believe in around 1950, the United States had five times as many nukes, if not more.
Source

I think the Americans would have been wise to bomb the hell out of China and Russia.

Then take over.

But Truman was much too kind.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think the Americans would have been wise to bomb the hell out of China and Russia.

In the 1950s the US still had some hopes that the CCP wouldn't survive too long, after all they still sponsored KMT destabilisation operations in this period.

Even with their edge in nuclear weapons, the US probably didn't have the capability to bomb China and the Soviet Union into submission. If nothing else, there was an issue of arsenal size vs. number and strength of targets. Those weapons would still have to be deployed from bombers, which the Soviets were capable of intercepting. Even if we assume the Soviets couldn't retaliate in kind against the US mainland, they probably could have retaliated against US bases in Europe etc. The aftermath would have seen the US without having achieved its objective, looking like a war-monger (after all, the USSR hadn't directly intervened in Korea) and with a bunch of very pissed off allies. Your scenario might win the Cold War for the US, but it wouldn't win it much power in the aftermath.

Then take over.

The US, even with its allies, would not have had the numbers needed to control the Soviet Union and China. Nor would it have derived much advantage from doing so.

Basically this is another of your foolish fantasies.

[Political Interest]

I think the Americans would have been wise to bomb the hell out of China and Russia.

How would they answer for this?

[dudekebm]

How would they answer for this?

Stopping a foreign invasion of another country essentially. We just got out of WWII. So as far as difficulty with such I don't think the Americans would have had any, when you consider this was a point in American History where everyone wasn't apologizing for being a winner.

But then again we were more about containment at the time with Truman's policies.

[R_G]

How would they answer for this?

Would you really need one?

The Korean War proved the U.N. was largely bought out by the U.S.

I mean, most of U.N. funds come from America.

I just think that was the golden moment for the United States to take over, and Truman opted not to.

[Smilin' Dave]

U.N support for the Korean War was only possible because the Soviets were boycotting it at the time. Otherwise they would have vetoed the 'police action'.

This also presupposes that all international opinion is through the U.N, which is wrong. Nation-states have been expressing distrust and hatred of each other on a bilateral basis for quite some time prior to the U.N's formation, and continue to do so.

[Igor Antunov]

Having a handful of multi kiloton nukes deliverable by aircraft which could be shot down meant nothing, especially when the soviets also had such weapons and their ballistic missile development was more developed. US has had no chance of ever taking over russia/china at any point in it's history.

[Oxymoron]

Having a handful of multi kiloton nukes deliverable by aircraft which could be shot down meant nothing, especially when the soviets also had such weapons and their ballistic missile development was more developed. US has had no chance of ever taking over russia/china at any point in it's history.

The point wouldnt be to ake over China nor Russia, only obliderate large chunks of Chinese forces, and perhaps some cities getting them out of the war. And with the right support perhaps get parts of mainland China back to the Taiwan goverment.

[Smilin' Dave]

@Igor

Having a handful of multi kiloton nukes deliverable by aircraft which could be shot down meant nothing

It certainly counted for something in 1945. I'm not saying it would have been as decisive, but I wouldn't call it nothing either.

especially when the soviets also had such weapons

But lacked the bases outside their home territory to launch similar attacks against the US mainland.

their ballistic missile development was more developed

Ballistic missile development by both sides in the early 1950s was still very much in its infancy. I don't think it would have made a difference.

@Oxy

The point wouldnt be to ake over China nor Russia, only obliderate large chunks of Chinese forces, and perhaps some cities getting them out of the war.

China would in many respects be harder to take over than 'Russia' (it was the Soviet Union back then, get it right). China had a much bigger population concentrated in greater depth (but with enough underpopulated areas to make it easy to create base areas). The strategy you outline didn't work for the Japanese, and they had more time to implement it with fewer morale scrupples.

And with the right support perhaps get parts of mainland China back to the Taiwan goverment.

The KMT was in even worse position to occupy China than the US. The KMT was comprehensively beaten by the Communists once, before the Communists had the strength of the whole mainland at their control.

[R_G]

U.N support for the Korean War was only possible because the Soviets were boycotting it at the time. Otherwise they would have vetoed the 'police action'.

Yes and because Taiwan had the Permanent seat and not the People's Republic.

The point is, most countries at the time were not favorable to China or the Soviet Union.

Having a handful of multi kiloton nukes deliverable by aircraft which could be shot down meant nothing, especially when the soviets also had such weapons and their ballistic missile development was more developed. US has had no chance of ever taking over russia/china at any point in it's history.

Says you. If those planes were shot down the nukes would still be exploding and inflicting radiation.

Plus Eisenhower himself proposed an invasion of the Soviet Union after WWII.

[Potemkin]

Says you. If those planes were shot down the nukes would still be exploding and inflicting radiation.

No, although the detonators might go off and scatter radioactive material, but the chances of that causing large numbers of Chinese casualties would not be high. Basically, you would just have turned a patch of wilderness into a patch of radioactive wilderness. The bombs themselves would not cause a nuclear explosion if the plane was shot down.

Plus Eisenhower himself proposed an invasion of the Soviet Union after WWII.

No, I believe that was Patton. Eisenhower was actually strongly against the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, and when he left office after serving as President he warned the American people against allowing the military-industrial complex to become too strong.

[Oxymoron]

The strategy you outline didn't work for the Japanese, and they had more time to implement it with fewer morale scrupples.

What do you mean it didnt work? Did Japan have Nucs?

[Smilin' Dave]

@R_G

Yes and because Taiwan had the Permanent seat and not the People's Republic.

The point is, most countries at the time were not favorable to China or the Soviet Union.

Many would have been against the idea of the handful of nations equipped with nuclear arsenals using them against nations which had no capacity to retaliate. Even Britain and France fall into this category, because their own nuclear deterent wasn't up to scratch by the early 1950s. If the US can throw nukes around, the Soviets are perfectly justified to doing this too, thus changing the strategic balance.

@Oxy

What do you mean it didnt work? Did Japan have Nucs?

Well they certainly experimented with biological warfare, bombing major Chinese cities and engaged in campaigns deep into the countryside destroying everything they could get their hands on and thus creating famine. What the Japanese lost in nuclear capability, they made up for it in terms of timeframe and lack of moral barriers... like I already said. In the 1950s nuclear weapons were still seen as bigger bombs, rather than some special terror in themselves. Nuclear fallout etc. were still not fully understood.

[Igor Antunov]

Plus Eisenhower himself proposed an invasion of the Soviet Union after WWII.

I'm sure he proposed a colony on mars also somewhere in his insane ramblings.

[beckhamleo]

if the us used nukes, then it might cause people to question the us gov't. because it was against the truman doctrine and the policy of containment which was to seek more diplomatic means to contain communism.
the soviet probably would help china even though it had way less nukes than the us did, just like china helped the N korea anyway although china was poorly-equipped.

[tyler933]

Yeah I believe in around 1950, the United States had five times as many nukes, if not more.
Source

I think the Americans would have been wise to bomb the hell out of China and Russia.

Then take over.

But Truman was much too kind.

What an unrealistic and stupid post. Had the US nuked both nations, I doubt they could honestly "take them over" as the USSR had a much stronger military and it probably couldn't take it over by force without a disastrous war.