Now if you are talking about dropping a nuke on the last couple of seasons of MASH**, that I could see getting behind.
It’s sometimes best to be cautious about taking claims of personal life history or experience at face value on the internet. Or in real life for that matter.
No no no, this was the same MacArthur who was certain there were no Chinese troops in Korea, so there was no need to worry about them while going hell bent for leather to the Yalu. Oops.
Nonsense. Aside from the mismatch of Serbia vs. the rest of the world over Kosovo, on what planet has a sustained bombing campaign forced any military power to pull out of anywhere? It didn’t work against Iraq in Kuwait, it didn’t work against the NLF in Vietnam, it didn’t work against the Germans in Italy.
Germany and Japan don’t count, we had a duty to them after WW2. As for S. Korea, they did well, I won’t deny that. But I don’t know about the lives spent in defending it from communism. Perhaps the overreaction to the menace led to the creation of a state such as North Korea. And was it really necessary to go into Nigaragua, or Vietnam, with guns blazing and overthrowing the government there? Communism didn’t last long, and I know that with hindsight I can say that, but with hindsight I could also say that if the US just let some states fall under Communist influence, they would have reached the conclusion much of the world has in the last 30 years and broken away.
So, we had a duty to protect and assist our former mortal enemies from (arguably, rightful and deserved) communist subjugation, but no duty whatsoever to protect and assist an innocent country and people that had been subjugated by that enemy for decades, and who were set to be subjugated once again because of the power vacuum we brought about?
Given that Japan controlled Korea, and we were now in control of Japan, didn’t we have at least as much duty to them and their welfare under those circumstances?
Perhaps so, perhaps not. But the one thing we do know for sure is that the (over?)reaction to the menace led to S. Korea looking like it does today. Nobody can seriously argue that they would have done nearly as well had we done nothing.
No.
No, you really can’t say that with hindsight. Since it didn’t happen that way, there’s no way to know the end result would have been the same. Not that I necessarily disagree, but I’d just be second-guessing - not using the benefit of hindsight.
The firebombing campaign against Japan in 1945 was very effective. Millions of people injured and homeless put a serious drain on their war effort. Thousands of industrial establishments were destroyed which cut production to a level below subsistence. And the bombing also weakened civilian morale.
The same could have been done to China. If 300 B-29’s dropped 1,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Beijing and burned the city to the ground, then the Chinese would realize that they should pull out of the war.
Or they’d “realize they should” spend the next century or so trying to utterly destroy America.
How do you know? It did not force Germany or Japan to pull out of the war. Imagine if China had done the same thing to Los Angeles. Would we just meekly surrender (or negotiate peace), or would we feel terribly wronged and be even more motivated to fight?
And yet they kept on fighting. And they would have *continued *fighting street by street, house by house had there not been a very real risk of complete annihilation, down to the very last child, via nukes.
China’s a smidge bigger than Japan though. Existentially threatening them would have taken some doing. Particularly considering they (plus token Russian involvement) sort of had the upper hand in the skies over Korea, MiG-15s being awesome machines for their time.
Up till the nuclear age with the exception of the Dutch after Rotterdam, nobody has surrendered to aerial bombardment simplicitor. Niether British nor German civilian morale was broken by the bombardment, quite the opposite, Indeed it was noticed in the interwar Colonial campaigns that areas which were subjected to bombardment from the air tended to see a stiffening of resistance. This was of course ignored by airpower theorists.
Well, how did Americans feel when the WTC was attacked?
That was only 3.000 dead.
16 B-29s were lost to enemy fighters during the Korean War.
That is not bad considering that the B-29s devastated North Korea during the course of the war.
If B29s were going to bomb China, they would be heavily escorted just as they were over Korea.
Against big, powerful countries, bombing has a chance to work only when accompanied by heavy ground forces (or against Japan, accompanied by atomic bombs and the threat of total destruction). Imagine if China had bombed Los Angeles- would we just back out?
Your idea strikes me as both monstrous in human terms and monstrously foolish strategically.
We don’t have to imagine counterfactuals about an incendiary campaign in the Korean War. As I wrote earlier, the U.S. performed one against North Korea. While I have not read the historian, Bruce Cumings’s, history of the Korean War that I mentioned previously in the thread, this is a short article from him about U.S. bombing in North Korea. I’d really like to see some primary documents that back up his claims. The article footnotes Conrad Crane’s, "American Airpower Strategy in Korea, " published in 2000 (which I also haven’t read yet.) Dr. Crane is the Director of the U.S. Army Military History Institute, FWIW. Anyway, from the article:
To put it lightly, I don’t believe the North Koreans ceased resisting while this campaign was going on. I don’t have figures handy though for what proportion of Communist forces in North Korea were North Korean in 1951-1953 though. It may be, as it was later to be in South Vietnam after Tet, that the bulk of Communist resistance was provided by an outside force. (The NVA in Vietnam; the Chinese Red Army in Korea.)
Whether the North Koreans would have ceased the invasion or resistance if LeMay’s proposed plan of immediately bombing “five of the biggest towns in North Korea—and they’re not very big”, I also don’t know. It certainly would have been a giant shock, particularly if done near simultaneously. See also, this talk by Dr. Crane on U.S. airpower strategies in the Korean War. From the talk:
Again, the North Koreans fought on ably, even with all of their strategic targets destroyed. Without the Chinese army infusion of men and materiel, they weren’t effective against the U.N., but they were still fighting.
So, I do not think that a conventional bombing campaign against Chinese strategic targets in Manchuria would have caused the Chinese to cease resistance. I do think it had a good shot at killing enough Chinese and wrecking enough rail and other transportation infrastructure to degrade the Chinese Red Army enough to allow the U.N. to be able to clear the Chinese out of North Korea. Whether that goal would be worth the human cost in China, and the longstanding enmity that would result, is another question.
Thanks for the cite. I don’t often visit the Pit.
I do appreciate the give-and-take with the rest of you.
Even better is that those Chinese wouldn’t be around to take our jobs!
We tried attacking the railroad lines during Operation Saturate in 1952. The problem was there weren’t enough aircraft to get the job done.
It probably would have been a good idea to nuke the bridge that connects Sinuiju, North Korea to Dandong, China and also nuke the bridge near Chongsu. It would have taken a while to repair/rebuild the bridges. Probably years.
In the tradition of Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull, I suggest that when the main thrust of an absurd OP is taken further to an even more ludicrous conclusion, it shall be referred to as “nuking the bridge”.
Hence the old saying, you can’t nuke the same bridge twice.
Is this a parody thread?