• kool_newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My perspective has been that the reason it was done was to demonstrate an ability and willingness. The U.S. knew is was in position to dominate the world and the bomb made it clear who was the new boss, testing wasn’t enough.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]@hexbear.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is correct, the bomb was primarily a threat to Russia and China. Which is why both expedited development of nuclear arms after the war. They knew that if they didn’t the US would use them (almost certainly would have in Korea and Vietnam without deterrence and MAD back channels)

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the bomb was only tested and not dropped, would the bomb have been dropped in Korea?

      • Biggay [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Almost definitely IMO, but you should listen to season 3 of blowback to get an idea of the Korean War and who was pushing to drop the bomb and who was not. Its important to note that the bomb at that point was undergoing the shift from Atomic fission bombs to Hydrogen thermonuclear bombs.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I know that the politics behind the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea, but would that be defendable politically without a mobilized public willing to make the use of nuclear weapons taboo?

          Name a weapon banned in war that wasn’t deployed in war.