There’s always a choice and it can always be helped.
By opting not to kill the enemy at that price, if nothing else - but usually there are plenty more options than that. It’s just that the ones we don’t pick are typically riskier, costlier, slower or simply more complicated. So rather than face the fact we just made a morally dubious choice, we convince ourselves we didn’t have one to begin with, “they” forced our hand. A handy skill, that.
(For clarification purposes, the list I gave earlier was the usual excuses and rationalizations we human beings tend to give ourselves in these kinds of cases, not stuff I agree with. For my money, each is more abominable than the next.)
It really wouldn’t have mattered because of how fast the US was building bombs. In Fiscal Year 1951 (1 July 1950 to 30 June 1951) the US built 284 atomic bombs. An average rate of 5 per week. The Soviets were barley producing 1 per month.
So all the bombs expended on China would be easily replenished and the US would maintain superiority.
Check your history again, After the defeat of Germany virtually the whole world was supporting the allies in the effort to defeat Japan, so, different context.
And most of the world was supporting the effort against the communists in Korea.
The UK, France, Canada, Turkey, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, Luxembourg, Colombia and Ethiopia all had troops in Korea on the UN side.
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Italy, India and Japan were also supporting the UN.
Wait, whut ? You actually believe the sino-soviet schism came into being thanks to Nixon ? Come on. Give ancestral antagonistic nationalisms and starkly diverging core ideologies some credit.
And you are just avoiding lots of background to report a sorry point on why the world did not turn against the USA, the world then was turned against Japan.
As for your distraction now, that is not the whole world and missing from the list where now China and the Soviet Union, what you are ignoring is also the whole context of the cold war, the other side could have nuked us back and started WWIII.
He’s also missing one slight little detail: why was Korea worth winning at all costs exactly ?
Domino theory ? A demonstrable load of shit, considering the fallout of both Korea and Viet-Nam (besides, Viet-Nam itself turned out sort of all right, commies or not). North Korea being a slight bit of a shithole, and South Korea risking the same ? Sure, but then again so are many, many other places. Their country, their problem. Keeping China in check, or turning China away from communism ? They kinda did that on their own. Saving the lives of American G.I.s ? Well, gee, there was a much simpler and less bloody way to achieve that.
What did I miss ?
Thinking that Moonshot represents “America” strikes me as extremely foolish particularly since we can’t even be all that confident that his online persona is remotely like his IRL persona.
FWIW, the Sino-Soviet split is considered to date from somewhere in 1960 to 1962, depending on which event you think caused the rift: the Congress of the Romanian Communist Party (1960), various Party congresses in the Soviet Union in 1961, or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Granted, they generally didn’t start shooting each other until 1969.
Nixon going to China, while a masterful piece of diplomacy, didn’t cause the schism. Nor exacerbate it, really. It did do a great job of helping ensure greater ties between China and the U.S., at a time where there was a perception of a non-trivial threat of China invading Indochina.
IIRC, Stalin was displeased greatly by the action of Kim Il Sung in invading Korea. It is not at all clear to me that he would have commenced a Soviet invasion of Western Europe in retaliation for nuclear strikes in Manchuria. Especially when he had very few bombs with which to use against the West, and the U.S. had quite a bit more, IMHO, enough to use against limited targets in Manchuria, while still having enough for the Soviet Union and what would become the Warsaw Pact. Stalin knew this—benefit of having the world’s most effective intelligence agency—and would not risk nuclear annihilation of the USSR in order to pull China’s chestnuts out of the fire, IMHO. It’s certainly debatable, though.
None of which says that this would have been the right thing for the U.S. to do, merely that the U.S. had the capability to do so without absolutely provoking an invasion of Western Europe.
Needs more cites, but I’m away from my books at the moment. Besides, football’s on…
And there still would have been millions of dead in Eastern Europe. The Soviet willingness to NOT invade Eastern Europe was in part due to their perception/hope that NATO wouldn’t nuke them first; if the nukes were out, they would have had no reason to not go for broke, and all hell would have broken loose.
At the end of the massacre, tens of millions more would have been dead, the United States would have been perceived with all the love and respect of Genghis Khan, and the world would not be better off. Nothing would have been accomplished that wasn’t accomplished anyway, and many worse things would have taken place. It is objectively the case that the UN forces accomplished their military goals in Korea without using nuclear weapons.
Oh, of course; the Chinese and Soviets were never BFFs. But getting China on board with being friendly with the West was a major coup in securing that area of the world as being (relatively) safe, and allowing the West to concentrate its military preparedness on the Warsaw Pact.
He’s hardly the first American I’ve come across with a “glass the foreigners” attitude. And even the less extreme tend to have the attitude that we can invade a nation, wantonly kill and destroy, and the inhabitants will love us for it. Just look at the common assumption that Iraq would love America for “liberating” it. That was pretty much our occupation strategy - that they’d throw flowers at us.
And you demonstrate that it was fortunate that you had no control of the situation then, the danger was not yet to the USA mainland (but in just a few years the USSR was going to get ICBM capability) the danger was to the US forces in the Korean peninsula and European nations allied to the USA.
Forgetting about the US forces in Korea and other places close to Russia is another reason why your replies so far are just silly.
Korean War - By Maurice Isserman, John Stewart Bowman
Dropping the first 2 atomic bombs ever on 2 cities to end a war is one thing. Dropping eighty to one hundred and twenty (as you advocate in your OP) and killing probably 10-20 million people is quite another. Are you entirely serious? Can you really imagine that the deaths of tens of millions of men, women, and children, would have been a better result than actual history?
After reading this thread, moonshot925, I feel compelled to ask you this- did you serve in the military? I did. I was in the Navy for 5 years. I’m thankful I was never faced with the choice to kill another human being- I’ve known a few men who have, and it’s a brutal thing. It’s necessary sometimes, unfortunately, but it’s a terrible, terrible thing.
The flippancy with which you toss around the idea of causing the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people is incredibly unnerving. Does human life have that little value to you? Where do you draw the line? If killing 10 million Chinese children might have saved some lesser number of American lives, would you be for it? Who do you trust with the power to kill millions?
American lives are not worth 40 Chinese cities full of lives. We shouldn’t have been in Korea in the first place. It was a war I’m glad the US didn’t exactly win
I don’t want to hijack, and I’m not saying the US (operating under the UN) did everything right, but it’s not quite as simple as “We shouldn’t have been there.”
It was *Japan *that shouldn’t have been there. But once Japan surrendered and fell under our administration, there were reasons to be there - more just reasons than China and the USSR had, anyway. It was their interference with eventual and rightful Korean independence that caused the conflict.
Should we have also left Germany and Japan immediately after the war was over? Do you think the USSR and China would have just left them alone? [/hijack] (Not that a hijack of this thread is any great sin…)