Should nuclear weapons have been used on China during Korean War?

[DiogenesofJackson]

Originally Posted by Capsuleneo

People say that it was right to drop the atomic bombs on Japan because it saved many American lives and speed the end of the war. So do you think the US should have used the atomic bomb to end Korean war quickly? If it weren’t for the Chinese involvement in the Korean War, Korea would have been one and the war would have ended in 1951, instead of lasting another 2 years. An atomic bomb dropped on a Chinese citiy would have forced them to surrender.

In China, people claim (and teach in school) that it was the US that invaded North Korea and China helped to repel the foreign invaders. In North Korea, people are dying every day because of their brutal regime. During the 1990s, as many as 3.5 million North Koreans died of starvation.

Sounds like some one wants C-D to do their homework for them. The OP's question sounds very much like a test question or essay topic.

I'd suggest reading Yuen Foong Kong's book entitled Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu,and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. See the chapter on the Korean conflict. He addresses why certain decisions were made and others were not.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Well, that assumes that China became a direct "overseer" of a united Korea in a more forceful manner then it did over what is now North Korea. China has plenty of its own issues to deal with that would have taken priority over worrying about Korea. I don't think the idea of a "Chinese run Korea" becoming a mini-modern China is exactly how it would have played out. I think "Dear Leader" (or whatever name they are using these days for the son) would still be ruling with an iron fist.

Yes, what they forget is that North Korea is not only a communist ruled country, but a dictatorship operating as a absolute autocratic monarchy since 1948. This is not Vietnam, and will never moderate and open up until that Cult of Personality that is the Kim Jung dynasty has ceased to exist, and it shows no signs of ending as every man, woman, and child is required to practically worship their leader every day. China was always content to allow North Vietnam independence as long as it did what it wanted (although internal affairs were up to the "Supreme Leader" of N. Korea), their is no reason to "overseer" Korea as they did Tibet.

[cubssoxfan]

Very interesting insight into Eisenhower's approach in the 50's. I would think his military background influenced this. I also wonder if the collateral damage and affect was fully realized since deployment of nuclear weapons may have led to radiation poisoning to friendly troops. A separate thread discussing the presidents approach to using nuclear weapons would be interesting.

[Nolefan34]

I would think the lessons learned from bombing the Japanese and the criticism that followed acted as a deterrent to using nuclear weapons against Korea.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Nolefan34

I would think the lessons learned from bombing the Japanese and the criticism that followed acted as a deterrent to using nuclear weapons against Korea.

What lesson did you have in mind? That if you use them the other side gives up a few days later despite all the down to the last drop of blood Bushido bluster?

[texdav]

Iwhat was called a Polcie action bu the UN.I can't think of anythig worse than UN gewttigtheir hands on nuclear weapons. They'd blow their hands off;LOL.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I don't know, it seems that Chinese Tibet is fairly well incorporated into Chinese economic development, and in the long run, I expect Tibetan automony. China does not occupy anyplace else that is not historically Chinese, nor have they ever tried to.

Point taken, China tends to only look to areas that were/are historically Chinese to begin with. Though they were quite happy to openly support 'friendly' governments in other places.

The fact is, China did not risk war over Formosa, even though it is historically Chinese.

Except that they did, at least until the US intervened. PRC forces engaged ROC forces in Formosa and even siezed a couple of islands until US support forced them to back down. At least that is the generally accepted story. The other theories are that they either a) only had limited goals to begin with and wanted to make a show of force or b) only backed down when the Soviet Union refused to forcefully back their claims and guarantee support in the event of war.

I can't think of any areas of Europe or Asia that the Soviets expanded into, other than those that they were granted as the negotiated spoils of WWII, so I know of no examples you can cite for your "blocked Soviet aggression". Unless you're talking about Cuba or Angola, where they provided the same military aid and puppet dictators the US did to cement future trading partners, so if you want to tar one side with the aggression brush, you need to tar both.

I am quite willing to 'tar' both sides for Cold War aggression. No doubt that the US got in bed with many unsavory characters in the name of "containing communism". The question though was not one of, did the Soviets expand or engage in aggression historically, but would they have if the US did not engage in actions like they did in Korea to show support for containment? You postulated that Korea was an unnecessary fight, my remarks were questioning that belief. It is of course an "alt-history" scenario. The US position is that it did and hence the interventions were justified. Your statement revolves around the US not being an aggressive party towards the Soviets which leaves open the quesiton of what would the Soviets have done had the US not been so open about 'containment'.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but only that your premise is not a slam dunk in support of prolonged US involvement in a part of the world where we had no interests.

No interests? You don't think we had any interests in the Korean peninsula, Formosa and SE Asia in particular including Japan and the Phillipines? Post WW2 the Pacific was arguably more in US interests then western Europe was because we were the primary actor in all matters.