Why didn't we use the Atomic Bomb in Korea?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Anybody ever wondered why we never deployed another atomic bomb to quickly bring the Korean War to an end? Was it ever under consideration?

Why did we not take out Saddam in Desert Storm? Why did we not negotiate with Hess for the "separate peace" he was offering?

I'll answer one of those questions and you can draw your own conclusions about the others. Saddam had to stay in power to continue to present a credible threat to surrounding nations so they would be williing to buy billions of dollars worth of defense equipment. No Saddam, no sales.

How many billions have been spent defending South Korea?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Charles

i don't get this.

I can add that in Vietnam, when the Sandies ran out of bombs, they would load up with sand bags and drop them on NVA positions.

[koreanvet]

Pres. Nixon, in 1969, had the Joint Chiefs draw up plans for the use of Nukes on North Korea after they shot down the Navy EC-121 spy plane. Twenty five B-52s were sent go Kimpo Air Base and were on 15 minute readiness for almost 7 months. Planes from Guam, Japan and Okinowa were also ready to fly. If Vietnam had gone better than it was, Tricky Dicky would have Nuke North Korea in a heart beat. Korean Forces US/ROK weew at DEFCON-2 status for almost two months.

[Steve Bagu]

North Korea is nothing but a bunch of very small mountains and a lot of large hills. My entire time was on the front lines and have pictures that I took showing the valley I was in and surrounded by those Hills/Mountains.

Atomic or Nitrogen would not do any damage at all unless every plant or Military position was in one of those valleys similar to what I was in.

We fired our 105's over the top of those small mountains. We fired many rounds between two of them called TNT (Jane Mansfield type) at the Chinese positions.

I was in the ammo section and we were using up WW1 Ammo with bad fuses.....fired a round and NO Explosion.

[Potential_Landlord]

Originally Posted by markg91359

The USSR exploded its first atomic bomb in 1949. By 1950, when the Korean War began its certain that they had a number of bombs in their arsenal.

President Truman's concern from the very outset of the Korean War, was to keep a limited, regional war from mushrooming into a world war. There no thermonuclear weapons in 1950 and I don't think there was a notion per se that atomic bombs would lead to the end of the world. There was a genuine bonafide concern though that the US could easily end up in World War III.

The US had rapidly demobilized its armed forces at the end of World War II. The forces we maintained in Europe after demobilization might have been totally insufficient to stop the Russians had they attacked in Germany. In fact, one of the reasons the Korean War took as long as it did for us to push North Koreans back across the 48th Parallel (into North Korea) was that our armed forces had lost much of their fighting edge. Truman and his advisors were responding to the fact that: 1. Americans did not want World War III; 2. There was a belief we could win a limited war in Korea if we would accept something less than total victory; 3. Our people and armed forces were not ready for another World War after one had just ended five years before; 4. There was a strong belief in Washington that communism could be defeated by "containing it".

I think history has proven Truman right.

I think these facts led to Truman being one of the least popular presidents post WW2. However in hindsight the judgement has changed and his handling of the war and transition of America from wartime to peacetime was quite well managed.

[Atai J.]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Anybody ever wondered why we never deployed another atomic bomb to quickly bring the Korean War to an end? Was it ever under consideration?

If using A-bomb became usual thing we would live in the nuclear hell today.