Does not having Louis Johnson as SecDef reduce chance of Korean War?

[Ming777]

Considering the effect the cutbacks made by Johnson had on American forces in Korea, one might say the North Koreas saw an opportunity to invade.

If say a more moderate Secretary of Defence, one that doesn't cut the military down as much as Johnson, was in charge, might North Korea have had second thoughts on invading and thus starting the Korean War?

 

[DG Valdron]

Probably the simplest way to avoid the Korean War is a more definitive stance diplomatically.

 

[jahenders]

Two things could have made a big difference:
1) Having someone other than Acheson as Sec State or him being more emphatic in support of South Korea. His non-mention of South Korea in a list of critical US interests may have served as a kind of green light for NK. At the very least, it certainly didn't deter them.

2) Being stronger on Defense could also have helped. After WWII we cut tactical assets severely, in part because we became reliant on nuclear deterrence. The Korean War proved that there were some conflicts (most) that we would NOT use nukes on and, therefore, we need strong tactical forces as well as nuclear.

Considering the effect the cutbacks made by Johnson had on American forces in Korea, one might say the North Koreas saw an opportunity to invade.

If say a more moderate Secretary of Defence, one that doesn't cut the military down as much as Johnson, was in charge, might North Korea have had second thoughts on invading and thus starting the Korean War?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Louis Johnson was a enabler, but not the source of the defense reduction. That originated in the US citizenry who had no iterest in a large standing army or a million man reserve force to support it. Fiscal conservatives in Congress were happy to run with that one. Johnson made the case the US defense could be conducted with a 'inexpensive' air force armed with several hundred nuclear bombs. Battleships, aircraft carriers, amphibious fleets, US Marines could be eliminated. The Army Armored Branch, the Engineer Branch, the Field Artillery Branch, ect.. ect... ect.. could all be folded into one wing of the Pentagon and some mothballed equipment in a desert somewhere. Congress loved it & used his plans as a justification for budget cuts they would have made anyway.

 

[Delta Force]

Louis Johnson was a enabler, but not the source of the defense reduction. That originated in the US citizenry who had no iterest in a large standing army or a million man reserve force to support it. Fiscal conservatives in Congress were happy to run with that one. Johnson made the case the US defense could be conducted with a 'inexpensive' air force armed with several hundred nuclear bombs. Battleships, aircraft carriers, amphibious fleets, US Marines could be eliminated. The Army Armored Branch, the Engineer Branch, the Field Artillery Branch, ect.. ect... ect.. could all be folded into one wing of the Pentagon and some mothballed equipment in a desert somewhere.

The minimal deterrent wasn't even as developed as it should have been. Strategic Air Command was not receiving B-36 bombers and nuclear weapons in the time and quantity they wanted, and Air Defense Command literally had an air defense system called "Lashup" (not a nickname, that was literally the name) that was scrounged together from World War II vintage radars.

 

[sloreck]

As has been noted, it was a combination of real or perceived military weakness on the part of the USA, combined with a perceived lack of US interest in South Korea that encouraged Stalin to give Kim the first the go-ahead for the war. The demobilization and the dependence on something special (here nukes in the past the big oceans) to protect the USA on the cheap is totally consistent with all of US history.

Another thing that has been a constant in US history is that when the military, which has been nickled and dimed since the last conflict, has to scramble when the next conflict breaks out - often suffering reverses or unnecessary casualties - is not ready on day one, the same Congress (and American people) that did not give them adequate resources, immediately sets up committees to examine the "failures" of the military. Can't think of an instance where those who consistently underfunded the military ever took responsibility for the result.

There is a difference between prudent spending and being cheap.