AHC: More nuclear weapons used in war?

TranscendentalMedication

Banned
With a POD of 1945, your challenge is to avoid a full-scale nuclear exchange, but have at least one incident, post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which a nuclear-armed power uses atomic weapons against an enemy.

*EDIT* More atomic bombs on Japan doesn't count. I should specify it has to be another conflict.
 
Last edited:

Matt Wiser

One idea comes to mind: Korea. Either they're used after the withdrawal from Choisn in 1950, or Ike uses one to convince the Chinese and NKs that he does mean business and force the Armistice.
 

Joyeux

Korea is the best chance, IMO. Made even better if the Soviets don't have their own bomb by then.
 

asnys

I'd like to third Korea. I've also heard that Eisenhower considered using atomic weapons to support the French at Dien Bien Phu, but I'm not sure if that's true or just something that was batted around but not taken seriously.
 

Matt Wiser

Targeting at DBP was a problem: Giap's troops were so close to the French at times that even Operation VULTURE: the proposed massed air strike by B-29s and Navy air, may have caused casualties among the defenders.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Asnys said:
I'd like to third Korea. I've also heard that Eisenhower considered using atomic weapons to support the French at Dien Bien Phu, but I'm not sure if that's true or just something that was batted around but not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

The French wanted it. Eisenhower didn't. He thought it was all pretty nuts. Operation Vulture by John Prados is a good overview.
 

TranscendentalMedication

Banned
These are good so far, Korea seems the most plausible, but let's branch out a bit. How about the other nuclear powers?

U.S.S.R. - 1949
U.K. - 1952
France - 1960
P.R.C. - 1964
Israel - 1967 (rumored)
India - 1974
South Africa - 1977 (never tested)
Pakistan - 1998
North Korea - 2006

And these are only the nuclear powers in OTL.
 
Last edited:

whitecrow

Banned
I don’t recall the details but I read that at the height of the Vietnam War there was a meeting between the military brass and the US president (don’t recall which one it was at the time) in the Oval Office. One of the generals proposed the use of nuclear weapons to end the conflict and the president pointed out the window at the crowd of anti-war protestors outside, asking if he were to authorize it how long does the general think it would take the protestors to break into the White House and tear him limb-from-limb :D.

More to the point: could such a situation arise where U.S. uses atomic weapons during hay-day of Vietnam War? Sometime between 1960s & early 1980s?
 

ivanotter

North Korea vs South Korea in 2013?
Suez, 1956?

I am not sure if Eden would have been "crazy" enough to do it.

I am also voting Korea. Somehow, before the real dangers etc were known.

The South African bomb was a "blackmail" bomb.

Ivan
 

Agentdark

A South African Nuclear weapon is touched off during the Rhodesian Bush War to try to incinerate most of the rebel leadership. I dont know if its plausible, and I dont know crap about that situation, but it would be one hell of a story. Especially as nobody would know immediately were the bomb came from.
 

TranscendentalMedication

Banned
whitecrow said:
More to the point: could such a situation arise where U.S. uses atomic weapons during hay-day of Vietnam War? Sometime between 1960s & early 1980s?
Click to expand...

Goldwater claimed that the he might pursue the nuclear option in Vietnam during the 1964 campaign, but I do believe that was a bit of Cold War saber rattling. The U.S. never likes to officially take the option "off of the table", but 99% of the time it's just intimidation.
 

ivanotter

Sorry, SA was not going to hurl bombs in Rhodesia. But is is a good try, though.

By and large, the SA bombs was blackmail of US. Like: better support us as we have the bomb and we can hurt Russia.

The initial delivery vehicle was Buccaneer but that was for regional use. The real deal was the development of the South African inter-continental missile.

Ivan
 

asnys

Matt Wiser said:
Targeting at DBP was a problem: Giap's troops were so close to the French at times that even Operation VULTURE: the proposed massed air strike by B-29s and Navy air, may have caused casualties among the defenders.
Click to expand...

MacCaulay said:
The French wanted it. Eisenhower didn't. He thought it was all pretty nuts. Operation Vulture by John Prados is a good overview.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks.

Here's a random one: when the French putschists launched their coup, there was an atomic bomb being readied for testing in the Algerian desert. There are long-standing rumors that the test was pushed up to keep the bomb from falling into the rebels' hands - and that the commander of the test site was, at least initially, sympathetic to them. I'm not sure what they could actually do with it - it's a test article, not a deliverable weapon - but maybe someone can think of something.
 

The Oncoming Storm

Sino-Soviet War? I remember reading once that the USSR had a plan to carry out a pre-emptive strike on China's nuclear facilities had a full scale war started.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

ITOL, Castro was willing to pull the temple down on his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and suggest to Khrushchev that the missiles be launched. Maybe we could have Castro launch off one of the nukes at an American target, and the US retaliate. If there was not a full scale atomic exchange as a result, and it remained simply a regional offense where the US subsequently bombed Cuba into the stone age, then that'd be an incident. Bonus if the US responded with nuclear weapons to Cuban targets.
 

MerryPrankster

Emperor Norton I said:
ITOL, Castro was willing to pull the temple down on his head during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and suggest to Khrushchev that the missiles be launched. Maybe we could have Castro launch off one of the nukes at an American target, and the US retaliate. If there was not a full scale atomic exchange as a result, and it remained simply a regional offense where the US subsequently bombed Cuba into the stone age, then that'd be an incident. Bonus if the US responded with nuclear weapons to Cuban targets.
Click to expand...

Even if Castro's men attacked the Soviets and took the weapons from them, would they be able to actually fire them? Control codes and all that.
 

asnys

MerryPrankster said:
Even if Castro's men attacked the Soviets and took the weapons from them, would they be able to actually fire them? Control codes and all that.
Click to expand...

Did Soviet weapons actually have those at this point? The US has either not yet introduced or has only just introduced PALs, and when they did add them the codes were all set to "000000", and would be until the 70s. (The JCS were pissed that McNamara was making them add them at all.)
 

MerryPrankster

I suggested if the Hungarian rebels were better organized in 1956 and able to push away the Soviet troops from Budapest, the Soviets might nuke the city.

(I admit this was inspired by how, in the Draka novels, rebels took over the city of Barcelona and the Draka nuked them.)

Someone with more knowledge of the USSR said the Soviets weren't nearly as "stern" as the Draka and it was more likely they'd simply keep attacking the Hungarians conventionally.

However, I did read that the Soviets lied to the soldiers they sent to Hungary, telling them they were going to Egypt until they actually got there, and they used tanks in Budapest to limit opportunities for fraternization with the rebels. There were Soviet troops executed later for refusing to fire on protesters.

Maybe the Hungarian rebels do better and the Soviet leadership starts fearing a mutiny. However, conventional aerial bombardment would get the job done without outraging everyone the way nukes would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top