What if MacArthur was killed in Korea after Inchon commenced, but before major Chinese offensive in

1.) Of those 299 devices, virtually all are required for war with the Soviet Union. That generation of bombs weren’t city busters, but a mixture of Mark IIIs and Mark 4s, with a maximum yield of 31kt. There were more DGZs/targets than there were bombs in the various warplans of the time, not factoring in attrition through bombs possibly not initiating or their carrier bombers being shot down en route to their targets. Destroying the USSR as a military threat would take probably 1200 bombs (factoring in attrition et al as above), apart from military targets in Eastern Europe and the field forces of the Red Army.

Thus, raw numbers don’t mean anything until you add context.

2.) I don’t know what your intended point in these three paragraphs is, but most of what you’ve written is largely irrelevant, save to my penultimate sentence.

Setting that aside, you are in error at each juncture:

A.) There was a general discounting of the threat of the Chinese on land, as well as air and sea. The reason that the ‘PLA-N’ couldn’t take Formosa is that, for all intents and purposes, it didn’t exist. No major surface ships, no real transports, nil.
B.) There were multiple reasons as to why the US/UNC did not hit Manchuria, not just a simplistic one dimensional reason.
Bb.) The early Soviet devices (note the use of the term) were not a real threat. Even in 1951, the notion that they get through to North America is fraught with the cruel basics of reality; the British Isles were likely beyond them as of ‘51.
C.) That fear comes out of what happened at the end of 1950.

(As a side point, no one called it Beijing at the time. It was very much Peking, which it remained until the 1980s in general Western public parlance, media and histories, after which point things shifted to appeasement of Red China. My personal thinking is that when we are talking and writing in English, there isn’t a big issue with using the Anglicised names of cities and countries, and we only alter our style quite selectively. Rome is more common than Roma, Egypt than Misr and Moscow than Moskva; for some reason, there is a tendency to kowtow to the imposition of pinyin, to lapse into punning.)

Dear me.

To be frank, what you’ve written doesn’t bear much resemblance to reality or history.

On the first matter, the somewhere was wrong. The frontline SAC B-29s aren’t even that, but B-50s. The B-36 is beyond the Soviet capacity to reliably intercept until the MiG-17 with afterburning engines. What happens when they come at night at 40,000 to 50,000 feet?

The Reds would be lucky to get some B-50s in daylight; they’ve got nothing that can get up to a -36.

The attack plans weren’t for a ‘fair’ one city at a time, but dozens of hits in the one go. Plan Trojan was for 70 targets and OFF TACKLE was for 123; for the latter, SAC could do 60 targets in the first go and require pre strike recon for the other 63:

“ The first atomic strike is scheduled to be launched on E+6.

Medium bombers will attack from the United Kingdom and B-36s will attack from either Alaska, Goose Bay, or Rapid City. In the event that B-36s are launched from Rapid City, it will, of course, be necessary to stage them through the Middle East, Experience to date indicates that, with present facilities at Eielson, we will not be able to operate B-36s through Alaska during mid-winter when temperatures are below about -30°.

The next chart shows the scheme of attack for medium bombers based in the United Kingdom, Let me emphasize that this is only the first strike, involving a total of 26 target areas. Also let me point out that it is only one way of conducting the strike. There are, of course, many variations involving the size of the force as well as tactics to be employed.

The attack plan calls for Soviet borders to be penetrated simultaneously by two major forces attacking from the northwest and southwest.

The total force will include 201 UK-based medium bombers and 10 North American-based B-36s. Only the UK phase is shown on the chart. 112 will attack along the northern route and 89 along the southern route. The northern force will approach along Southern Scandinavia and Southern Finland, the penetration occurring in the area northeast of Leningrad. The southern forces will cross Central France, Central Italy, the Southern Balkans, and will penetrate along the Black Sea area.

We have resorted to color to show the scheme of maneuver by indicating successive positions of the two forces as the attack develops.

For instance, at the time that the northern force is crossing Southern Scandinavia, the southern force will be crossing Greece.

During the period 1905-1950, GCT, forces will be positioned as shown by brown. At this time, borders will be crossed and periphery targets bombed.

During the period 1950-2035, the forces will be positioned as shown by the blue areas. Seven targets will be bombed during this period.

7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

During the period 2035-2120, positions are shown by green. Five targets will be bombed.

The most remote targets, totalling ten, will be struck during the period 2120-2333, as shown by the red.

Within approximately four hours after borders are crossed, all targets will have been bombed.

We have not attempted to indicate the withdrawal routes. However, forces attacking targets north of the dotted Red line will withdraw to the United Kingdom; while those attacking targets south of the line will withdraw to staging bases in the Middle East.

We believe that this general scheme of attack will give us the maximum degree of saturation in so far as fighter defenses are concerned.

To dilute AA defenses as much as possible, we plan to compress each attacking cell to approximately one minute between successive aircraft. A cell will normally comprise from two to four supporting bombers and one A-carrier.

Simultaneous with the United Kingdom strike, B-36s are scheduled to strike six targets from North American bases, making a total of 32 targets included in the first strike.

It is also planned to dispatch reconnaissance aircraft against untargeted areas during this first strike.

The timing of later strikes will be determined by the tactical situation. However, we plan to launch the second

8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

strike not later than E+9. If United Kingdom bases remain tenable, it is planned to complete strikes against 123 targets within a period of 30 days.“

web.archive.org/web/20200628220814/http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/USAF/Cdr_Conf_SAC_APR-50/SAC_Commanders_Conference_Apr_50.htm


- No chugging
- No pulling back beyond the Urals when being attacked from multiple directions
- Harry Turtledove is of absolutely no utility or credibility in a serious historical discussion. He is a Byzantine historian and fictional author
- Utterly wrong on the type of targets. The bombers were aimed at airfields, factories, strategic industry, command targets and more

I’d cordially suggest we stop this here and not drag this off the topic set out by Mr Harris 1973. Do some serious reading and research on the Korean War, SAC, US atomic war planning and military history, not just Turtledove or pop history. That depth will help you challenge certain assumptions and presumed knowledge (TIK’s rhetorical question of ‘But is this really the case?’ is a good standby) as well as constructing a better rounded understanding of the above topics.

Going to say something related to this, then i think we can bring this thread back to topic.

miletus is free to come back when she wants to, she was only kicked, not banned, so if she comes back and follows the rules like we all try to do, then we can keep making this little forum the best place there is.