Heck, if we’re rewriting history, it might have been better to use a really small nuke on MacArthur personally before he provoked the Chinese intervention.
Had the snuke been invented yet?
Yeah, but the exchange rate on American lives to European lives is very favourable.
Oh fine, if we’re nitpicking there were also like a million US servicemen stationed in Germany, but who’s counting when the point is… err… hold on, I had it just a minute ago… possibly not losing an utterly meaningless proxy conflict ? “Saving lives” by butchering hundreds of millions wholesale ? I forget. One of those anyway. I’m sure it made sense at some point.
RDS-1 (only atomic bomb available to the Soviets) weighed 4600 kg.
The first flight on the Tu-85 was in January 1951. The AL-2K engines proved to be unreliable and the project was canceled in November 1951. Only 2 prototypes were built.
I’m sure that that would be very comforting to those who got nuked.
He’s not saying you wouldn’t have gotten your hair mussed. But no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Should we have killed millions (maybe tens of millions) of Chinese men, women, and children, committing by far the worst mass murder in all of history?
No.
We were at war with China.
Chinese troops were killing thousands of American GIs.
A successful nuclear attack would deliver the “knockout punch” that would put an end to the bloodshed.
I disagree. If nothing else, Truman should go down in history as recognizing the awesome power of the nuclear bomb and declining to use it as any other weapon in the arsenal. It is unique in that respect. From caveman days and rocks and spears, civilization kept building bigger and bigger weapons, and using them as much as they could. Nuclear weapons were rightfully the stopping point for that.
Sure, it would save American lives, but it would also turn another country into a radioactive wasteland killing civilians by the millions. That is not the way we, or any other civilized country, should want to conduct war.
That being said, the two we dropped on Japan were the right thing to do, but after the realization of that damage, we rightfully backed off using them as a matter of course.
But, we do need to get ourselves one of them doomsday devices. 
Isn’t a basic tenet of war that you don’t take the attack to innocent civilians?
It is sometimes necessary to win. We firebombed 67 Japanese cities in WW2. Over 100,000 people were killed in the 9/10 March 1945 fire raid on Tokyo. And then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You’re talking about mass murder, not war.
(hey, what can I say ? The movie keeps being relevant (and **moonshot **keeps being Buck Turdginson), I’ll keep quoting it)
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Isn’t a basic tenet of war that you don’t take the attack to innocent civilians?
[/QUOTE]
Not so basic, actually. Took many, *many *centuries of fun fun massacres before it became the way we do things all sportsmanlike. Or rather, the way we pretend to try and do things unless otherwise expedient or profitable. Or we’re really angry. Or we want to send a message. Or they deserve it. Or we don’t really care. Or it can’t be helped. Or it’s just collateral damage.
There are many exceptions to that basic tenet of war, when it comes right down to it. Like one of those grammar rules with more exceptions than applicable cases.
In the Korean War, that wasn’t the case. At least for North Korean (and insufficiently patriotic South Korean) citizens. Go look at the U.S. bombing campaign against N. Korea. It’s basically a duplicate of the March-April 1945 firebombing campaign against Japan, with similar results. The casualty figures for N.K. noncombatants is going to be difficult to verify, but IIRC, the ballpark figure is 1-1.5 million. Bruce Cumings’s, The Korean War: a History, supposedly delves into this further (along with every other feature of the conflict.) Yet another book I need to read.
If there was a target north of the 38th, and south of the Yalu, the U.S. tried to burn it with napalm. Usually, they were successful.
I agree that at times it can’t be helped. When enemies hide their combatants inside civilian populations, you have little choice. But as a rule we at least try to follow it. We don’t just say, “Fuck it all” and lob a thousand nukes at Afghanistan.
And we can’t fight in here. This is the war room!
In addition, we weren’t at war with China. We would have been dropping nukes on what was ostensibly a non-declared enemy.
Officially, the million Chinese troops that poured over the border were “volunteers”, like the US airmen who joined the RAF or the Blue Legion fighting in Spain during the civil war. The fact that they had logistic support from the PRC is meaningless in the world of “realpolitik”.
So, basically, just to sum up:
You support the surprise bombing of 10’s of millions of innocent men, women and children. you support bombing of someone we are NOT in a declared state of war, or even a police action with.
You are willing to risk the atomic bombing of Western Europe and the death of thousands of American soldiers in Germany to murder millions of innocent non-combatants.
Is that correct?
I think that casual use of nuclear weapons after the end of WWII would have plunged the world into a dark age that would last a thousand years. Something like Samurai Jack and the Evil that is Aku.
If the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have done anything good, it is to demonstrate to the world that evil warmongers like Saddam Hussein threaten to destroy all that is good, and that destroying hundreds of thousands of people in a fit of pique is evil and just because it is easy doesn’t make it a good idea. Oh, and by the way, atomic bombs are now routinely 20 times as powerful at a minimum and the world has thousands of them. Arithmetic isn’t the strong point of the knuckle draggers, but between direct damage and fallout, we would all be dead and dying.
Not after you just dropped most of them on China.
What exactly does your plan accomplish? You’ve killed millions of innocent people in order to accomplish** what conventional war succeeded in doing anyway**. You’ve probably started a war with the Soviet Union and killed millions more in Europe - the Soviets will happily bomb U.S. troop concentrations in Europe if they can’t bomb New York, that was the original point of nukes anyway - and you’ve just eliminated the possibility of Nixon going to China and turning them away from the Soviets, which might well be the #1 reason the West won the Cold War.
By the logic of the OP, we should nuke the fuck out of Pakistan for what they’re doing or allowing in Afghanistan and their tribal areas.
Never mind what this does to the world at large or comes floating back to us…
Possibly. Perhaps if we had captured the children of the top Chinese leaders and generals, and sent pieces of these children back to their families until they surrendered, that might have ended the war too. If we had created and released a biological weapon that instills torturous pain and madness in all Chinese women, and offered the cure only in the case of total surrender, that also might have ended the war.
The ends don’t always justify the means.
What the OP advocates would have turned the entire world against us, and turned the USA into the worst villain in all of history.
Not only is it monstrous, but it’s monstrously stupid. I question the OP’s grasp on the real world.