Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We also need to remember that the Soviets at this time were stuck using reverse engineered B-29's known as Tu-4's as their only means for delivering an atomic bomb. It wasn't until the roll out of the Tu-16's in 1954 and Tu-95's in 1956 that they really gained a real strategic bomber threat. Even then it wasn't until the Tu-95 that they gained the ability to effectively reach the continental United States.
The United States always held an advantage in strategic bomber forces and at the timeframe we are discussing the B36 "Peacemaker" was capable of delivering any nuclear weapon in our arsenal intercontinentally and at any target in the Soviet Union from our various bases.
So, the timeframe we are speaking of was probably one of the few moments in the Cold War when the United States could have engaged a nuclear option with only a limited threat of reprisal and it was virtually impossible for the Soviets to attack the continental United States. Something tells me using nuclear weapons in Korea would have resulted in a lot of "shoe pounding" in the UN and a possible conventional military response in Europe. However, they would not have countered with their own nuclear weapons as doing so would have resulted in their destruction.
Even if the Soviets couldn't mount an attack on the US homeland, their were plenty of targets within range of Soviet forces in places like Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, France, Britain Japan (Okinawa), Korea (guess what a nuclear strike could have done to the Pusan parimeter). The result might have been 10,000s of American troops incinerated not to mention a lot of American allies. During the Korean war we had a force of B-29s, B-50s (modernized B-29), B-36s and maybe a handful of our first jet bomber the B-47. It wasn't clear how many of those could fly the thousands of miles once across Soviet borders to reach targets like Moscow, Sverdlovsk or Krasnoyarsk being opposed by thousands of Migs, Yaks and Sukhois. Also the US arsenal consisted of about 200 bombs so when they had shot down lets say 200 or more bombers the US would have shot its bolt. Then the war is now on a conventional footing and we were outnumbered maybe five to one in Germany. Just think how the negotiations would go trying to get the release of American POWs.
Yup.
There are bad outcomes to spare, and no good ones in the perspective of history on this war.
The stalemate left the United States bilious and unhappy. Until Korea, we were completely used to the idea that we would always win, and we were unprepared for anything other than capitulation. Korea was a lesson we didn't accept, and we didn't accept our loss in Viet Nam any better.
We claim we won the Cold War- maybe we did, as we were prepared to go bankrupt, but the Soviets just left the field in the truth of it. They had more pressing problems internally to fix than keep up the incredibly wasteful arms competition.
And our recent wars still aren't teaching enough of us the realities of the new century. All that money we spent on preparing to fight the last war haven't done us much good in fighting terrorists.
We are very good at winning battles, but very bad at ending wars. We were at our best after WWII- there was a generation of leaders who understood peace could only be reached by picking our former enemies back up and putting them back on their feet after we had driven them to their knees. There is not much of that wisdom and mercy around these days, and even less understanding of what's needed to make a lasting peace. We are still stuck in a mindset of total victory or nothing. I'm think we'll get the nothing, and never get total victory.
Even if the Soviets couldn't mount an attack on the US homeland, their were plenty of targets within range of Soviet forces in places like Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, France, Britain Japan (Okinawa), Korea (guess what a nuclear strike could have done to the Pusan parimeter). The result might have been 10,000s of American troops incinerated not to mention a lot of American allies. During the Korean war we had a force of B-29s, B-50s (modernized B-29), B-36s and maybe a handful of our first jet bomber the B-47. It wasn't clear how many of those could fly the thousands of miles once across Soviet borders to reach targets like Moscow, Sverdlovsk or Krasnoyarsk being opposed by thousands of Migs, Yaks and Sukhois. Also the US arsenal consisted of about 200 bombs so when they had shot down lets say 200 or more bombers the US would have shot its bolt. Then the war is now on a conventional footing and we were outnumbered maybe five to one in Germany. Just think how the negotiations would go trying to get the release of American POWs.
How many deliverable nuclear weapons did the Soviets have in August/September 1950? None. At that point, the Soviets had tested precisely one nuclear weapon -- in August 1949. A second test in 1950 failed -- no detonation. The USSR wouldn't detonate its second device until September 1951. And they wouldn't conduct an airdrop test until the following month -- the first two successful tests, as well as the failed test, were all tower shots. So, when the Pusan perimeter was being held, the Soviets had successfully detonated a nuclear device on a tower once, and failed another time. They clearly did not yet have the ability to detonate via airdrop even a coddled device under peacetime conditions -- how on Earth, even assuming they had available nuclear weapons lying around, were they going to deliver them via air, drop them appropriately, and have them detonate successfully and at the right altitude -- when they had never even done this in training?
Again, I'm not at all suggesting that we should have used nuclear weapons. But the historical record does not indicate that the Soviets had any ability whatsoever to use nuclear weapons in Korea against UN troops in 1950.
Building a nuclear weapon is one thing. Building one small enough to be dropped from an aircraft, with a proper triggering mechanism so it will detonate as intended, and sturdy enough to work in combat conditions is a whole different kettle of fish.
OK, supposing we had, and been successful in our aims. Where would China be today? If we had forced China to bypass the Mao years, and go straight to a competitive free-market competitive industrial economy. Like Japan. Today's China, with a 50 year head start.
Or would we have just propped up one brutal dictator after the other, all selling out to our interests, and China today would be a big Zaire or Haiti.
We should have let the Germans fight the Soviets like they wanted to do rather than defending Britain's dream of keeping their empire and jealousy of Germany and letting the Soviet Union trample over Eastern Europe and Finland.
We were on the wrong side in ww2 and luckily the aftermath with the Soviets wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Even if the Soviets couldn't mount an attack on the US homeland, their were plenty of targets within range of Soviet forces in places like Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, France, Britain Japan (Okinawa), Korea (guess what a nuclear strike could have done to the Pusan parimeter). The result might have been 10,000s of American troops incinerated not to mention a lot of American allies. During the Korean war we had a force of B-29s, B-50s (modernized B-29), B-36s and maybe a handful of our first jet bomber the B-47. It wasn't clear how many of those could fly the thousands of miles once across Soviet borders to reach targets like Moscow, Sverdlovsk or Krasnoyarsk being opposed by thousands of Migs, Yaks and Sukhois. Also the US arsenal consisted of about 200 bombs so when they had shot down lets say 200 or more bombers the US would have shot its bolt. Then the war is now on a conventional footing and we were outnumbered maybe five to one in Germany. Just think how the negotiations would go trying to get the release of American POWs.
Like Voyageur said, nuclear retaliation wasn't possible for the Soviets at that time, they simply didn't have the capability. Like I said earlier, their only response would have been a conventional attack on Western Europe. Our only response to that would have been a nuclear strike on them.
Also, the US had far more bombs than you are stating. In 1948 we had 300. In 1950 we possessed over 1,000 and by 1953 we had over 18,000.
Additionally, the B36 "Peacemaker" was capable of reaching all major targets in the Soviet Union from bases in England and Japan. It's operational ceiling also made it immune in the brief timeframe we are discussing from anything in the Soviet arsenal save the MiG15, of which only the "bis" variant introduced in early 1950 would have been considered a major threat. None of their piston aircraft or AA systems could touch the B36.
Regardless of anything else (like I said, I'm not advocating we should have) the United States in the time period we are talking about had the capability to deliver a crippling nuclear blow to the Soviets without risking a nuclear return. I would also have to think that having several major cities evaporated would have really made them think twice about pursuing a conventional war in western Europe.
We should have let the Germans fight the Soviets like they wanted to do rather than defending Britain's dream of keeping their empire and jealousy of Germany and letting the Soviet Union trample over Eastern Europe and Finland.
We were on the wrong side in ww2 and luckily the aftermath with the Soviets wasn't as bad as it could have been.
You really need to go back to school and read about the chain of events leading up to the beginning of WW2.
We should have let the Germans fight the Soviets like they wanted to do rather than defending Britain's dream of keeping their empire and jealousy of Germany and letting the Soviet Union trample over Eastern Europe and Finland.
We were on the wrong side in ww2 and luckily the aftermath with the Soviets wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Huh? obviously, you don't know much about history. The Germans fought the Soviets until they were completely played out on the Eastern Front. Germany didn't want Britain's empire- Hitler wanted all of Europe. They weren't interested in the British Empire, except for the oil producing countries of the Middle East.
The Soviets did not want Europe. They distrusted Western Europe, but feared Germany deeply.
What they wanted, and got, was a buffer zone of Eastern European nations that would absorb the damage of a future war with Germany. For them it was much better to fight a future war with Germany in the buffer nations- Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the rest, than fighting the Germans for a 3rd time in the motherland. After WWII ended, the Russians wanted to make sure Germany would not rise from the ashes again, as it did so soon after WWI.
Remember that the Russians lost millions of their people in both WWI and WWII. The Russian army lost over 3,000,000 soldiers in WWI, and the German Empire, if it had been larger, could have conquered Russia then. The Kaiser got bogged down in Western Europe, just as Hitler did less than 30 years later.
Like Voyageur said, nuclear retaliation wasn't possible for the Soviets at that time, they simply didn't have the capability. Like I said earlier, their only response would have been a conventional attack on Western Europe. Our only response to that would have been a nuclear strike on them.
Also, the US had far more bombs than you are stating. In 1948 we had 300. In 1950 we possessed over 1,000 and by 1953 we had over 18,000.
Additionally, the B36 "Peacemaker" was capable of reaching all major targets in the Soviet Union from bases in England and Japan. It's operational ceiling also made it immune in the brief timeframe we are discussing from anything in the Soviet arsenal save the MiG15, of which only the "bis" variant introduced in early 1950 would have been considered a major threat. None of their piston aircraft or AA systems could touch the B36.
Regardless of anything else (like I said, I'm not advocating we should have) the United States in the time period we are talking about had the capability to deliver a crippling nuclear blow to the Soviets without risking a nuclear return. I would also have to think that having several major cities evaporated would have really made them think twice about pursuing a conventional war in western Europe.
I agree with all your remarks on American weapons superiority in those first few years after WWII.
The Soviets were well aware of the effects of the atomic bomb. The entire planet feared atomic weapons at that time.
Truman knew how the world thought about atomics, too. It wouldn't have mattered if we had dropped one bomb or 100- after 1, the U.S. would have been a pariah to the rest of the planet.
It could be argued that only Truman, a President who knew what an A-Bomb could do, would be the one who knew best when to use one or not. But the Truman documents show that Harry came close to ordering one to be used, though he never did. Instead, he was much more willing to accept a stalemate, and that turned out to be the best of the choices.
If he was to come back, I'm sure he would be amazed that the stalemate has lasted so long.
Huh? obviously, you don't know much about history. The Germans fought the Soviets until they were completely played out on the Eastern Front. Germany didn't want Britain's empire- Hitler wanted all of Europe. They weren't interested in the British Empire, except for the oil producing countries of the Middle East.
The Soviets did not want Europe. They distrusted Western Europe, but feared Germany deeply.
What they wanted, and got, was a buffer zone of Eastern European nations that would absorb the damage of a future war with Germany. For them it was much better to fight a future war with Germany in the buffer nations- Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the rest, than fighting the Germans for a 3rd time in the motherland. After WWII ended, the Russians wanted to make sure Germany would not rise from the ashes again, as it did so soon after WWI.
Remember that the Russians lost millions of their people in both WWI and WWII. The Russian army lost over 3,000,000 soldiers in WWI, and the German Empire, if it had been larger, could have conquered Russia then. The Kaiser got bogged down in Western Europe, just as Hitler did less than 30 years later.
Hitler had a interesting view of the role the British could play in his new world if they would only come to their senses. He viewed the British as having a high degree of Aryan-racial purity and the fact they ruled nearly 1/3 of the world was evidence that their blood was almost as good as the Germans. He hoped the British would be reasonable and would simply get out of his way. Britain would have to recognize Germany as the senior partner and for that they would be able to keep their Empire in Asia, the Americas, Pacific and after adjustments were made in Africa they could be left in peace. Germany would have its hands full digesting its new Eurasia realm and African domain and help from British aryans would have been useful. Other nations considered sufficently Aryan to be brought into the New Order of things, included, the Irish, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese,Scandinavians, Hungarians, Italians,Greeks, Georgians, Armenians, Turks, Persians and last but not least the Americans who largely descend from Aryan stock and were the ambitious Aryans who left places like Germany and built that nation from a wild frontier.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
