3 ms·
China was already sending troops and material to the front lines when MacArthur was ordered to stand down. Pushing further would have meant a hot war with Chin
by timschmidt 10mo ago
China was already sending troops and material to the front lines when MacArthur was ordered to stand down. Pushing further would have meant a hot war with China.
- petcat 10mo agoA hot war with China in 1950 was going to end quickly with the firepower USA had on-hand.
- timschmidt 10mo agoThere is no way we could match them in numbers on the ground. Such a conflict would have inevitably led to us nuking them as a result. Which is probably the reason decision makers chose not to.
- petcat 10mo agoAnd maybe that's really the humanitarian failure. That USA didn't nuke China in 1950 or 1951. Would have solved a lot of problems for generations of people.
- yongjik 10mo agoWow, just half a dozen comments from why we're not saving North Koreans to "we could've nuked China and solved a lot of problems." Some Hacker News threads are on their own level.
- petcat 10mo agoWell we know what happened to North Korea after China "won". And it's pretty fucking god-awful for 10s of millions of people for 80+ years. USA dropping nukes probably would have been the better outcome for humanity.
- gpm 10mo agoUSA dropping nukes would have prevented the convention against using nukes in wars from being started. I think there's a pretty good chance we wouldn't have any civilization left by now if we went down that fork in history.
- jojobas 10mo agoHow is nuking Japan different from nuking Korea? Everybody agrees that forcing Japan to surrender with nukes was much better for everyone involved than a ground invasion.
- AngryData 10mo agoWhen Japan was bombed, nobody else in the world had nuclear weapons, the US only had 2, and there were only a handful of people outside of the US seriously researching nuclear weapons and were still years away from a test. By 1950 the USSR had working nuclear bombs, had proven so with a nuclear test, and a dozen other countries had started their own nuclear weapons programs.
- nl 10mo agoIt's different almost by definition? Because it was a once (twice!) off the impact and significance of it is amplified.
- nl 10mo agoWait - you think the solution to some people having a lower standard of living and others being persecuted is to kill them all?
- lkbm 10mo agoNukes usually don't wipe out entire countries, especially tactical nukes. I'm far from convinced that using nukes in the Korean War would've been a good move, but equating it with "kill[ing] them all" is completely dishonest. What's your goal in this debate, and is it served by dishonest rhetoric?
- TheBicPen 10mo agoMaybe the real humanitarian failure is that the US didn't nuke everybody and start over from the stone age. Can't any societal problems if no societies exist, right?
- noobr 10mo agowtf
- nl 10mo agoIn what way? The US nearly lost the Korean war. The US army was nearly overrun at least once. The US airforce never achieved air superiority, and Soviet aircraft were better in most ways. The only undisputed advantage the US had was nukes, which is why MacArthur wanted to use them tactically (!)
- beachy 10mo agoThe subsequent Vietnam war reinforced this even more. The only path that America had to win in Vietnam was to destroy it, including the population they were allegedly there to protect. Hence they lost.