MacArthur gets his way (1951) - RAR

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2008-05-01 08:38pm

What if in April 1951, President Truman, rather than removing Douglas MacArthur for insubordination, grants the good General his 38 Nuclear bombs to utilize at his discretion in the Korean theater as requested. The United States had developed a contingent nuclear bombing campaign against North Korea and then Manchuria since the start of the Korean War.

Would cutting off China's land passage to Korea by a radiation zone allow the UN forces to unite Korea as an independent Republic? Would China have been able to launch any sort of offensive against the UN forces, in the manner of the Inchon landings? Would the Soviet Union have gotten involved more actively, nuclear bombing Seoul or Japanese cities out of Chinese/Siberian airfields? Would the war expand into Europe?

Here is the place for speculation on the course the Korean conflict might have taken if MacArthur had been allowed to, as he put it later; "I would have dropped between thirty and fifty atomic bombs...across the neck of Manchuria" spreading "a belt of radiation which has an active life of between sixty and one hundred years.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-05-01 08:46pm

Aside from the possible ramificaitons of Russia going nuclear in response oh yes and possibly irradiating Japan and the rest of Korea if it isn't done right? Far too many scenario's to parse out but I think suffice to say that we would likely have been looking at WW3 because anything less than a massive Chinese and Russian response to a nuclear attack on their allies would have opened the door to the US using its lead in total weapons to bully them into submission.

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2008-05-01 09:53pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Aside from the possible ramificaitons of Russia going nuclear in response oh yes and possibly irradiating Japan and the rest of Korea if it isn't done right? Far too many scenario's to parse out but I think suffice to say that we would likely have been looking at WW3 because anything less than a massive Chinese and Russian response to a nuclear attack on their allies would have opened the door to the US using its lead in total weapons to bully them into submission.

OTOH, I don't think the Soviet Union had the ability in 1951 to seriously threaten CONUS.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-05-01 11:44pm

Cecelia5578 wrote:OTOH, I don't think the Soviet Union had the ability in 1951 to seriously threaten CONUS.

No, but what they DO have is probably enough to threaten American allies in Europe and convince them to switch sides, which, after Hitler & Co. taught American governmental leaders that isolationism is a BAD IDEA, would be unacceptable.

Give MacArthur his 38 nukes and authorization to spread the war to China, and you GUARANTEE that the war will spread to Europe. That will NOT be fun.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2008-05-02 12:10am

Hmm. This subject was dealt with extensively in "Variant-Bis 2: Year of the Dead Snake"

The Original Nex wrote:Would cutting off China's land passage to Korea by a radiation zone allow the UN forces to unite Korea as an independent Republic?

More likely start a war with China.

The Original Nex wrote:Would China have been able to launch any sort of offensive against the UN forces, in the manner of the Inchon landings?

Why not?

The Original Nex wrote:Would the Soviet Union have gotten involved more actively, nuclear bombing Seoul or Japanese cities out of Chinese/Siberian airfields? Would the war expand into Europe?

Not really, no. As far as I gathered, the USSR was not really keen on the "Asian theater". I bet if the US nukes North Korea though that would score really lots of PR.

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2008-05-02 11:45am

If the US does start a war with China...what can China seriously do to threaten the US?

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-05-02 12:07pm

Cecelia5578 wrote:If the US does start a war with China...what can China seriously do to threaten the US?

Nothing by itself, but by drawing the USSR into committing more to the Commies' war effort (which the Soviets MUST DO to maintain a credible claim over leadership of the Communist world), they can REALLY fuck things up. As noted, the Soviets can't directly threaten the US, but they can threaten US allies in Europe, maybe even Japan.

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2008-05-02 12:24pm

Sidewinder wrote:
Cecelia5578 wrote:If the US does start a war with China...what can China seriously do to threaten the US?
Nothing by itself, but by drawing the USSR into committing more to the Commies' war effort (which the Soviets MUST DO to maintain a credible claim over leadership of the Communist world), they can REALLY fuck things up. As noted, the Soviets can't directly threaten the US, but they can threaten US allies in Europe, maybe even Japan.

What air assets did the SU have in the Far East to be able to threaten Japan and Europe with at the same time? That would be the only way for the SU to threaten Japan, especially with a beefed up USN presence cause of the Korean War.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-05-02 02:30pm

The USSR had the Tupolev Tu-4, a reverse-engineered copy of the B-29 Superfortress, and sharing that aircraft's nuclear capabilities.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-05-02 06:30pm

Sidewinder wrote:The USSR had the Tupolev Tu-4, a reverse-engineered copy of the B-29 Superfortress, and sharing that aircraft's nuclear capabilities.

Not all Tu-4s had nuclear capabilities, mind you.

Scottish Ninja · Post by **Scottish Ninja** » 2008-05-04 03:29pm

That raises the question: what was in the Soviet Union's strategic arsenal in 1951?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-05-04 04:03pm

Nothing by itself, but by drawing the USSR into committing more to the Commies' war effort (which the Soviets MUST DO to maintain a credible claim over leadership of the Communist world), they can REALLY fuck things up.

The Soviets lost leadership over the Communist world IRL. They'd probably do something, but I don't see why they'd stake their existence on what is essentially a brutal but limited war in Manchuria and Korea.

Would China have been able to launch any sort of offensive against the UN forces, in the manner of the Inchon landings?

Why not?

Do the Chinese have the naval capacity, technology, and expertise to pull off a major landing in hostile territory? With the overland route blocked you'd think the UN fleet would be looking for an overseas invasion.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2008-05-04 07:24pm

In 1951 the United States had 640 Nuclear Weapons stockpiled. The Soviets had 25. Also note that Truman and British PM Atlee had discussed the possibility of using Britain as a base for nuclear bombers as a contingency if the Soviets got pushy in Europe in response to UN actions in China or on the Korean Peninsula.

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2008-05-04 09:19pm

How Effective would Soviet MiG-15s be against US bombers of the time?

Zor

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-05-05 02:36am

Zor wrote:How Effective would Soviet MiG-15s be against US bombers of the time?

IIRC, MiG-15s managed to stop or at least severely slow down American bombing raids for a time because the US didn't have a jet fighter that could escort the B-29s on their runs. This stopped once the F-86 arrived in numbers in Korea.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-05-05 02:55am

... But I highly doubt it could intercept the B-36.

CC · Post by CC » 2008-05-05 10:03am

KlavoHunter wrote:... But I highly doubt it could intercept the B-36.

B-36 wasn't a major threat at this point in time. There were only 25 production B-36Ds, 62 B-36Bs, and 22 B-36A (I don't know how many of the Bs and As may have been converted by this point in time). The guns still didn't work right at this point in time which means that the B-36 is a sitting duck against a MiG-15 if it can get vectored in on them, especially for the -A and -B which are much slower.

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-05-07 08:45pm

KlavoHunter wrote:... But I highly doubt it could intercept the B-36.

On what basis? The figures I could find with a cursory search show that the MiG has a service ceiling that's 2-5,000 ft. higher, its cruising speed is about 100 mph faster than the B-36's max speed, and it certainly doesn't need a lot of range to hit the bombers in an air defense role. By these numbers, the MiGs could easily intercept and destroy any B-36 they found. Please do tell me if I'm missing something.

Omega18 · Post by **Omega18** » 2008-05-18 07:27am

The Original Nex wrote:In 1951 the United States had 640 Nuclear Weapons stockpiled. The Soviets had 25. Also note that Truman and British PM Atlee had discussed the possibility of using Britain as a base for nuclear bombers as a contingency if the Soviets got pushy in Europe in response to UN actions in China or on the Korean Peninsula.

A related key is the Soviet nuclear bombs were still quite primitive and of limited yield, while Mark 6 with a yield of around 120 to 150 kilotons was getting deployed by the US in 1951.

Omega18 · Post by **Omega18** » 2008-05-18 07:52am

starslayer wrote:
KlavoHunter wrote:... But I highly doubt it could intercept the B-36.
On what basis? The figures I could find with a cursory search show that the MiG has a service ceiling that's 2-5,000 ft. higher, its cruising speed is about 100 mph faster than the B-36's max speed, and it certainly doesn't need a lot of range to hit the bombers in an air defense role. By these numbers, the MiGs could easily intercept and destroy any B-36 they found. Please do tell me if I'm missing something.

I think the assertion the Mig-15 could not intercept the B-36 is clearly wrong, but I think the point that it was not always that easy for it to do so does have some merit.

Basically if the B-36 if flying towards its max altitude, it takes some time for the Mig-15 to climb that high if its taking off in response, and there is the basic reality that its far more preferable for the B-36 to be shot down BEFORE it drops a nuclear weapon. This meant the warning time and positioning of the Mig-15 was important to interception, if it was in the wrong place it could also have trouble reaching the altitude and position of the B-36 before having to head back to an air field because it was out of fuel.

My recollection, and this seems to be backed up by at least one internet source I can find, is at least the early Mig-15s had trouble with maneuverability around the B-36's max altitude.

The Mig 15 could just reach the B-36’s 45,000 ft. cruising altitude and remain under control. While the listed service ceiling was 51,000 ft., early -15s really couldn’t get that high and still fight. About 46,000 ft. was all they could manage. Later versions were better at altitude but the early ones just fell from the sky attempting any kind of a tight combat turn above 46,000 ft.

http://www.masportaviator.com/ntp/convairb36.asp

My understand is the problems for maneuverability at this altitude meant that among other things the B-36's guns could be effective if they were functioning when intercepted.

Omega18 · Post by **Omega18** » 2008-05-18 08:21am

It should also be noted that the US also had plenty of B-50 bombers available for employing nuclear weapons by this point. While essentially a modified B-29, it still did feature somewhat superior performance.

While historically the B-45 was not deployed in the nuclear role in Great Britain until May of 1952, it sounds like a few of them which were already modified to carry nukes could have been deployed on an emergency basis if a nuclear exchange between the USSR and the US occurred in April of 1951 or later. This was in fact a jet powered aircraft, with a max speed of 570 miles per hour and a altitude ceiling of 46,400 feet.

The US's overall nuclear superiority in both nuclear bombs and its bomber fleet to deploy them would give the USSR a good reason not to react too strongly in response if the US did decide to go through with MacArthur's plan.

starslayer · Post by **starslayer** » 2008-05-18 05:16pm

Thank you Omega18. Do you know if F-86's were deployed in Korea in numbers by the time MacArthur requested permission for the nukes? As I understand it, that makes the question of whether the MiGs could intercept the bombers moot anyways because of effective fighter escort.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-05-18 06:03pm

Why does this sound like a curb-stomp? Even if they go on a war-footing does the US military not have enough bombers and enough Nukes for an Alpha strike if Russia steps in?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-05-18 06:04pm

Mr Bean wrote:Why does this sound like a curb-stomp? Even if they go on a war-footing does the US military not have enough bombers and enough Nukes for an Alpha strike if Russia steps in?

Not in 1951.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2008-05-18 07:52pm

The MiG-15 could tear a B-29 or B-50 apart, it took only a few interceptions of B-29s over Korea before all daylight B-29 operations halted. That’s a big catch, the MiG-15 was a good plane but it’s purely a short range daylight fighter. The Soviets had little in the way of radar equipped night fighters at the time, and domestic production of radar sets period was still only getting started. This would leave the Soviet Union very vulnerable to US nuclear bomber attacks. Nuclear bombing can’t destroy the Soviets in 1951, but it would not take very long before the Soviet economy was completely disrupted.