Truman gives MacArthur the go-ahead for nuking China during the Korean War

[WolfBear]

What if US President Harry Truman gives US General Douglas MacArthur the go-ahead for nuking China during the Korean War? What would the effects of this have been, both short-term and long-term?

@raharris1973 @stevep @History Learner

 

[Sergeant Foley]

What if US President Harry Truman gives US General Douglas MacArthur the go-ahead for nuking China during the Korean War? What would the effects of this have been, both short-term and long-term?

@raharris1973 @stevep @History Learner

You need to make this a full-fledged timeline ASAP with photos

 

[Circle of Willis]

Mac might've gotten at most nine nukes in 1951, when he wanted 50-60. Also it's not entirely clear how wide the scope of the American plans for nuclear bombings were - it might have been as 'limited' as just NK and the Chinese side of the Yalu (as Mac supposedly explained to Eisenhower in 1952), or he may have had his eye on targets deeper in Chinese soil on Manchuria & Shandong (the Joint Chiefs' plan), or he may have even hoped to not just nuke targets in China but also Vladivostok as a pre-emptive blow to make sure the Soviets couldn't assist the PRC or send any more help to the North Koreans.

Assuming the most limited option is what's taken, the US wins the Korean War. China is left seething but, even if Manchuria & Shandong have been nuked, has no means by which to retaliate at this time or in the foreseeable future. However, for obvious reasons détente will probably never happen ITL. Also, the precedent for using nuclear weapons outside of a WW3 scenario has been set and the Soviets will probably be dropping instant sunshine over Afghanistan (or whatever other backwater they interfere in militarily) in this timeline.

A 'middle' course of glassing extensive targets in China might weaken the PRC enough that Chiang can invade from Taiwan. Of course he won't do that without extensive US support, which means a much larger land war in Asia. Not sure whether the US public would be willing to support that (Korea was unpopular as it was), as well as the inevitable post-war reconstruction (Marshall Plan for China basically) if Chiang wins, considering huge parts of mainland China will probably have been left in a state of irradiated ruin, anarchy or both. Stalin might be sufficiently intimidated to do nothing as Big Mac expects and hopes, or he might be pissed enough to launch an attack in Europe in retaliation, in which case you get WW3 - see below.

Nuking Vladivostok obviously leads into WW3. The good news is, the US has something like 200-300 nukes and the Soviets only had like five around this time (and no delivery systems that can hit CONUS IIRC), plus everyone's still playing with the sort of bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, so a nuclear war is winnable for America. The bad news is, the Soviet & Warsaw Pact military will still almost certainly be able to do a number on the barely-rebuilt Europe before the Americans glass them to oblivion. End result? Communism is slain, at a serious to severe cost to continental Europe and an assuredly monumental one to the now-former Soviet Union, and global American hegemony assured. The European nations in the line of fire (Germany, France, etc.) will be pissed at getting destroyed again, basically, over Korea and anti-American resentment among them probably soars through the roof, but realistically they aren't going to be able to do anything about it for a very long time (in fact they'll likely need a Marshall Plan 2.0 just to rebuild, yet again, for the second time in as many decades).

 

[WolfBear]

Mac might've gotten at most nine nukes in 1951, when he wanted 50-60. Also it's not entirely clear how wide the scope of the American plans for nuclear bombings were - it might have been as 'limited' as just NK and the Chinese side of the Yalu (as Mac supposedly explained to Eisenhower in 1952), or he may have had his eye on targets deeper in Chinese soil on Manchuria & Shandong (the Joint Chiefs' plan), or he may have even hoped to not just nuke targets in China but also Vladivostok as a pre-emptive blow to make sure the Soviets couldn't assist the PRC or send any more help to the North Koreans.

Assuming the most limited option is what's taken, the US wins the Korean War. China is left seething but, even if Manchuria & Shandong have been nuked, has no means by which to retaliate at this time or in the foreseeable future. However, for obvious reasons détente will probably never happen ITL. Also, the precedent for using nuclear weapons outside of a WW3 scenario has been set and the Soviets will probably be dropping instant sunshine over Afghanistan (or whatever other backwater they interfere in militarily) in this timeline.

A 'middle' course of glassing extensive targets in China might weaken the PRC enough that Chiang can invade from Taiwan. Of course he won't do that without extensive US support, which means a much larger land war in Asia. Not sure whether the US public would be willing to support that (Korea was unpopular as it was), as well as the inevitable post-war reconstruction (Marshall Plan for China basically) if Chiang wins, considering huge parts of mainland China will probably have been left in a state of irradiated ruin, anarchy or both. Stalin might be sufficiently intimidated to do nothing as Big Mac expects and hopes, or he might be pissed enough to launch an attack in Europe in retaliation, in which case you get WW3 - see below.

Nuking Vladivostok obviously leads into WW3. The good news is, the US has something like 200-300 nukes and the Soviets only had like five around this time (and no delivery systems that can hit CONUS IIRC), plus everyone's still playing with the sort of bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, so a nuclear war is winnable for America. The bad news is, the Soviet & Warsaw Pact military will still almost certainly be able to do a number on the barely-rebuilt Europe before the Americans glass them to oblivion. End result? Communism is slain, at a serious to severe cost to continental Europe and an assuredly monumental one to the now-former Soviet Union, and global American hegemony assured. The European nations in the line of fire (Germany, France, etc.) will be pissed at getting destroyed again, basically, over Korea and anti-American resentment among them probably soars through the roof, but realistically they aren't going to be able to do anything about it for a very long time (in fact they'll likely need a Marshall Plan 2.0 just to rebuild, yet again, for the second time in as many decades).

Very realistic scenarios! The crucial question, of course, would be how exactly the US would structure the new world order in this TL after winning a nuclear war against the Soviet Union? Would it create a giant NATO that spans from Hainan all of the way to Glasgow? And a giant Eurasian Union as well?

 

[stevep]

Well taking Circle's three options.
a) Agree,
b) Not sure that Chiang could win. He's going to be very unpopular as a defeated former leader who's now seen as a puppet of the power currently nuking China. Also Stalin has a middle option between attacking in Europe and doing nothing in terms of sending his own forces into China in support of Mao. Would the US risk nuking them? If so what happens if Stalin in turn nukes US forces supporting Chiang's invasion. - A lot might depend on how much the US knows or thinks it knows about the Soviet military arsenal and delivery capacity.
c) The US will win but its going to be very bloody. Also, if the US is willing to maintain a fairly large army they can probably establish some sort of order in central and eastern Europe but what about the former USSR and China which are likely to be in chaos? Apart from this being a humanitarian disaster how do you stop people, who have plenty of reason to hate the US being continuing threats to Americans abroad, with probably a lot of terrorism.

In terms of a new world order after WWIII expect any power with the capacity to seek nukes ASAP which would include the UK, France and possibly India while Germany, Japan and others might be looking for ways to get that capacity. Probably other powers as time goes on. Also much of the Third World would be deeply mistrustful of the US, especially in the scenario where the US deliberately triggers the wider conflict by Vladivostok.

 

[raharris1973]

Just eliminating some city centers in China with small numbers of fission bombs is far from adequate to overthrow the Communist regime. It may not be adequate to cripple Communist force logistics in Korea either.

I would note US atomic delivery capacity is much more formidable by November-December 1952 than it is in December 1950-January 1951.

 

[WolfBear]

I would note US atomic delivery capacity is much more formidable by November-December 1952 than it is in December 1950-January 1951.

It would also be much more politically difficult for Truman to do since he's a lame duck, no?

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Well taking Circle's three options.
a) Agree,
b) Not sure that Chiang could win. He's going to be very unpopular as a defeated former leader who's now seen as a puppet of the power currently nuking China. Also Stalin has a middle option between attacking in Europe and doing nothing in terms of sending his own forces into China in support of Mao. Would the US risk nuking them? If so what happens if Stalin in turn nukes US forces supporting Chiang's invasion. - A lot might depend on how much the US knows or thinks it knows about the Soviet military arsenal and delivery capacity.
c) The US will win but its going to be very bloody. Also, if the US is willing to maintain a fairly large army they can probably establish some sort of order in central and eastern Europe but what about the former USSR and China which are likely to be in chaos? Apart from this being a humanitarian disaster how do you stop people, who have plenty of reason to hate the US being continuing threats to Americans abroad, with probably a lot of terrorism.

In terms of a new world order after WWIII expect any power with the capacity to seek nukes ASAP which would include the UK, France and possibly India while Germany, Japan and others might be looking for ways to get that capacity. Probably other powers as time goes on. Also much of the Third World would be deeply mistrustful of the US, especially in the scenario where the US deliberately triggers the wider conflict by Vladivostok.

All Chiang had to do was kick Mao's ass by crushing the commies in the Civil War of 1948

 

[Sergeant Foley]

It would also be much more politically difficult for Truman to do since he's a lame duck, no?

Since Truman was eligible for a second full four-year term in 1952.

 

[WolfBear]

Since Truman was eligible for a second full four-year term in 1952.

But he didn't run and would have decisively lost had he run, hence him not running.

You need to make this a full-fledged timeline ASAP with photos

You can make it lol!

 

[Bassoe]

Very realistic scenarios! The crucial question, of course, would be how exactly the US would structure the new world order in this TL after winning a nuclear war against the Soviet Union? Would it create a giant NATO that spans from Hainan all of the way to Glasgow? And a giant Eurasian Union as well?

I doubt it. The original Marshall Plan was only because the American leadership feared a devastated Europe becoming Soviet puppet regimes in exchange for assistance rebuilding if we didn't help them first. Here there are no Soviets so that's a nonissue and any 'reconstruction' of Western Europe will probably owe more to the OTL looting of post-Soviet Russia by western oligarchs.

Of course, this basically guarantees World War Four by the 2000s at latest as Europe rebuilds and remains really upset with the Perfidious Yankees for intervening in WW2 and preventing the axis powers from destroying communist Russia before it could get nukes, demanding decolonization as a Marshall Plan prerequisite and getting their countries nuked, letting American corporations pillage Europe with really exploitative deals for resources and labor in the post-nuclear wasteland. And so forth and so on.

You just recreated the treaty of versailles stab in the back mythos, but as an essentially accurate assessment of the situation.

 

[raharris1973]

I doubt it. The original Marshall Plan was only because the American leadership feared a devastated Europe becoming Soviet puppet regimes in exchange for assistance rebuilding if we didn't help them first. Here there are no Soviets so that's a nonissue and any 'reconstruction' of Western Europe will probably owe more to the OTL looting of post-Soviet Russia by western oligarchs.

Of course, this basically guarantees World War Four by the 2000s at latest as Europe rebuilds and remains really upset with the Perfidious Yankees for intervening in WW2 and preventing the axis powers from destroying communist Russia before it could get nukes, demanding decolonization as a Marshall Plan prerequisite and getting their countries nuked, letting American corporations pillage Europe with really exploitative deals for resources and labor in the post-nuclear wasteland. And so forth and so on.

You just recreated the treaty of versailles stab in the back mythos, but as an essentially accurate assessment of the situation.

As a "bonus" for American capitalists, the early destruction of the Communist alternative and drastic lowering of standard of living "expectations" by the Eurasian population allows them to outsource low-end and then middle-end manufacturing to cheap labor Eurasia decades earlier, undermining the unionized American working middle class a couple decades earlier.

 

[raharris1973]

Mac might've gotten at most nine nukes in 1951, when he wanted 50-60. Also it's not entirely clear how wide the scope of the American plans for nuclear bombings were - it might have been as 'limited' as just NK and the Chinese side of the Yalu (as Mac supposedly explained to Eisenhower in 1952), or he [II] may have had his eye on targets deeper in Chinese soil on Manchuria & Shandong (the Joint Chiefs' plan), or he [III] may have even hoped to not just nuke targets in China but also Vladivostok as a pre-emptive blow to make sure the Soviets couldn't assist the PRC or send any more help to the North Koreans.

With just nine fission nukes applied according the Yalu river transit region (option I), there's a 50/50 chance of causing major operational/logistical problems for the Chinese and North Korean forces in North Korea if combined with conventional UN forces tactical full court press. But the battlefield results may disappoint, and the intimidation effect on Mao and Kim is not guaranteed at all. I think its downright unlikely to get them to yield. And if it gets them to yield, its to talks on the basis of restoring North Korea, not surrendering North Korea. If the aim is to intimidate Communist bloc capitulation and yielding of North Korea to UN occupation, it has to work against Stalin, and I think that is unlikely as well with this borderlands bombing approach.

Nine fission nukes thrown at nine major Chinese cities in Manchuria and Shandong (option II) would have even *less* immediate military effect in Korea than option I, and only with luck would one of those atomic bombs be a 'golden BB' catching and killing Mao and a majority of top PRC leaders to the point of destabilizing the PRC regime. More likely Mao survives the blast or a smooth succession among the top-echelon occurs and the PRC regime is perfectly resilient to the loss of multiple downtown areas. Down the line some military production facility and staff losses could be felt downstream in Korea, but the PRC regime and its Soviet backers have the capacity to make substitutions to keep the fight going and avoid capitulation.

For option III, with the bonus attack where one of the 9 nukes is used on Vladivostok, the operational and logistic impact isn't that much more impressive than option II. A logistics, storage, and production point in support of North Korea is taken out. But there are substitutes, even if less convenient, if the Communists simply absorb the attack and keep going without capitulating.. Politically, it can be more intimidating because it shows greater American boldness and puts more pressure on Stalin to make decisions, but by the same token it is also escalatory and could lead to involvement of his admittedly weak nuclear and long-ranged air forces, and much more formidable conventional and tactical forces in the Far East and Europe against, if not America itself, America's more limited set of chokepoints and bases in Korea itself, Okinawa, and Japan.

 

[Circle of Willis]

With just nine fission nukes applied according the Yalu river transit region (option I), there's a 50/50 chance of causing major operational/logistical problems for the Chinese and North Korean forces in North Korea if combined with conventional UN forces tactical full court press. But the battlefield results may disappoint, and the intimidation effect on Mao and Kim is not guaranteed at all. I think its downright unlikely to get them to yield. And if it gets them to yield, its to talks on the basis of restoring North Korea, not surrendering North Korea. If the aim is to intimidate Communist bloc capitulation and yielding of North Korea to UN occupation, it has to work against Stalin, and I think that is unlikely as well with this borderlands bombing approach.

Nine fission nukes thrown at nine major Chinese cities in Manchuria and Shandong (option II) would have even *less* immediate military effect in Korea than option I, and only with luck would one of those atomic bombs be a 'golden BB' catching and killing Mao and a majority of top PRC leaders to the point of destabilizing the PRC regime. More likely Mao survives the blast or a smooth succession among the top-echelon occurs and the PRC regime is perfectly resilient to the loss of multiple downtown areas. Down the line some military production facility and staff losses could be felt downstream in Korea, but the PRC regime and its Soviet backers have the capacity to make substitutions to keep the fight going and avoid capitulation.

For option III, with the bonus attack where one of the 9 nukes is used on Vladivostok, the operational and logistic impact isn't that much more impressive than option II. A logistics, storage, and production point in support of North Korea is taken out. But there are substitutes, even if less convenient, if the Communists simply absorb the attack and keep going without capitulating.. Politically, it can be more intimidating because it shows greater American boldness and puts more pressure on Stalin to make decisions, but by the same token it is also escalatory and could lead to involvement of his admittedly weak nuclear and long-ranged air forces, and much more formidable conventional and tactical forces in the Far East and Europe against, if not America itself, America's more limited set of chokepoints and bases in Korea itself, Okinawa, and Japan.

I don't disagree that there's a lot of room for things to go wrong when we're playing with nukes. That said, if Mac gets to drop the bombs and they don't work, I think escalation - ie. him getting even more nukes - is more likely than Truman backing down and basically going 'hmm yeah I guess that wasn't very smart of us, I'm happy to talk about pulling back to the 38th Parallel (or slightly above it) and letting NK live now'. It'd be a massive loss of face for him, to have let MacArthur glass the Yalu's banks (per the OP) but then balk at following up when it proves insufficient. I'm sure Mac, Curtis LeMay and other hardline commanders in the US Armed Forces would be firmly of the opinion that the only solution would be to drop even more A-bombs on the enemy, as well.

In any case, the genie's out of the bottle. I imagine a Truman who backs down likely gets the Democratic Party destroyed (with or without him still on its ticket) in '52, probably by MacArthur who can now justifiably call the president out for telling him to use the nukes but not giving him enough to 'win' in the first place. And in that case I think we'd almost certainly have WW3 anyway, just in 1956 over Hungary/Suez probably. A Truman who escalates...well, probably means WW3's still on, or at least that the Americans keep going until they've completely crushed China while the Soviets look on in horror. (And then you have an emboldened US that knows it can win hard at atomic warfare, plus a paranoid and resentful Soviet Union. IOW, a recipe for WW3 in 1956 or even earlier becomes likely, yet again)

 

[raharris1973]

That said, if Mac gets to drop the bombs and they don't work, I think escalation - ie. him getting even more nukes - is more likely than Truman backing down and basically going 'hmm yeah I guess that wasn't very smart of us, I'm happy to talk about pulling back to the 38th Parallel (or slightly above it) and letting NK live now'.

I'd agree that escalation is more likely than backing off short of dictating victory in Korea.

But getting crews and bombs together for escalated strikes in quantity will still take time. If for some reason in 51 they were only prepared to start with 9, it means they weren't physically capable of getting the theoretically couple hundred bombs on targets in a couple weeks.

In the ramp-up there's time for debate to start, Britain and Western Europe to protest - with NATO members either deciding to go along with the American death ride or declaring themselves neutral.

A Truman who escalates...well, probably means WW3's still on, or at least that the Americans keep going until they've completely crushed China while the Soviets look on in horror. (And then you have an emboldened US that knows it can win hard at atomic warfare, plus a paranoid and resentful Soviet Union. IOW, a recipe for WW3 in 1956 or even earlier becomes likely, yet again)

If the latter, the European allies may disassociate from US/NATO and seek out independent nuclear capability ASAP.

 

[ATP]

Mac might've gotten at most nine nukes in 1951, when he wanted 50-60. Also it's not entirely clear how wide the scope of the American plans for nuclear bombings were - it might have been as 'limited' as just NK and the Chinese side of the Yalu (as Mac supposedly explained to Eisenhower in 1952), or he may have had his eye on targets deeper in Chinese soil on Manchuria & Shandong (the Joint Chiefs' plan), or he may have even hoped to not just nuke targets in China but also Vladivostok as a pre-emptive blow to make sure the Soviets couldn't assist the PRC or send any more help to the North Koreans.

Assuming the most limited option is what's taken, the US wins the Korean War. China is left seething but, even if Manchuria & Shandong have been nuked, has no means by which to retaliate at this time or in the foreseeable future. However, for obvious reasons détente will probably never happen ITL. Also, the precedent for using nuclear weapons outside of a WW3 scenario has been set and the Soviets will probably be dropping instant sunshine over Afghanistan (or whatever other backwater they interfere in militarily) in this timeline.

A 'middle' course of glassing extensive targets in China might weaken the PRC enough that Chiang can invade from Taiwan. Of course he won't do that without extensive US support, which means a much larger land war in Asia. Not sure whether the US public would be willing to support that (Korea was unpopular as it was), as well as the inevitable post-war reconstruction (Marshall Plan for China basically) if Chiang wins, considering huge parts of mainland China will probably have been left in a state of irradiated ruin, anarchy or both. Stalin might be sufficiently intimidated to do nothing as Big Mac expects and hopes, or he might be pissed enough to launch an attack in Europe in retaliation, in which case you get WW3 - see below.

Nuking Vladivostok obviously leads into WW3. The good news is, the US has something like 200-300 nukes and the Soviets only had like five around this time (and no delivery systems that can hit CONUS IIRC), plus everyone's still playing with the sort of bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, so a nuclear war is winnable for America. The bad news is, the Soviet & Warsaw Pact military will still almost certainly be able to do a number on the barely-rebuilt Europe before the Americans glass them to oblivion. End result? Communism is slain, at a serious to severe cost to continental Europe and an assuredly monumental one to the now-former Soviet Union, and global American hegemony assured. The European nations in the line of fire (Germany, France, etc.) will be pissed at getting destroyed again, basically, over Korea and anti-American resentment among them probably soars through the roof, but realistically they aren't going to be able to do anything about it for a very long time (in fact they'll likely need a Marshall Plan 2.0 just to rebuild, yet again, for the second time in as many decades).

1.Yes,they would win,question is - would they get entire Korea,or only part of it?
2.No matter what happen,it would still be better for China as long as commies there lost power.
3.Yes,we get american world.And polish Europe,becouse they need some nation there to hold what was left of soviets in check,and do not let germans start another WW.
In OTL,USA let germans rearm only becouse they need cannonfodder against soviets.They no need it anymore,so - no powerful Germany here.

All Chiang had to do was kick Mao's ass by crushing the commies in the Civil War of 1948

USA prevented that,stopping his offensive and making him talk to Mao.

I doubt it. The original Marshall Plan was only because the American leadership feared a devastated Europe becoming Soviet puppet regimes in exchange for assistance rebuilding if we didn't help them first. Here there are no Soviets so that's a nonissue and any 'reconstruction' of Western Europe will probably owe more to the OTL looting of post-Soviet Russia by western oligarchs.

Of course, this basically guarantees World War Four by the 2000s at latest as Europe rebuilds and remains really upset with the Perfidious Yankees for intervening in WW2 and preventing the axis powers from destroying communist Russia before it could get nukes, demanding decolonization as a Marshall Plan prerequisite and getting their countries nuked, letting American corporations pillage Europe with really exploitative deals for resources and labor in the post-nuclear wasteland. And so forth and so on.

You just recreated the treaty of versailles stab in the back mythos, but as an essentially accurate assessment of the situation.

1.True,no Marschall plan- but,what looting post -soviet Russia? if somebody do that,it would be Wall Street,not western Europe.
2.What WW3? Europe would never unite in this scenario.We would have independent France,England, Italy,weak Germany which never get any help so would be unable to control other countries ,and probably still occupied,
And much stronger Poland,which probable would support USA for notching just like in OTL.

So,who would start that WW? all you could get is another short european war.

 

[raharris1973]

ObssesedNuker from the other place:

In any case, the attempt to bomb within China would have likely run straight into the Sino-Soviet Fighter and Air Defense units deployed into the country for exactly this purpose. Some or all of the atomic bombers might be shot down, depending on how their luck breaks. Maybe even all of them, although that is very low probability. The follow up conventional bombing units sent against Manchuria and China proper would have certainly rapidly been rendered combat ineffective from aggressive Sino-Soviet interception, based on the loss rates from similar such interceptions during the Korean War proper. Particularly since none of the plans I've seen intended to target air bases or their depots.

In Korea itself, the bombings undoubtedly would have succeeded and casualty rates would have been low, as per OTL, but then the USAAF levelled most of the country anyways with conventional weapons and that failed to sever the Sino-Korean Communists supply lines. In fact, after the summer of 1950, Sino-Korean supply throughput steadily increased right up to the last years of the war. So while whatever atomic bombs are dropped within Korea would likely have some short-term impact on Chinese military forces, it would be a temporary reprieve from a tactical-operational standpoint.

Moving up to the wider strategic-grand strategic picture, whether whatever proportion of the 34 atomic bombs that are directed against China (and successfully delivered) would have been enough to to do more than wound the Chinese or convince them to quit is dubious. While they would be hurt, their fears about American aggression against their homeland would have been more than confirmed and the precautionary undertaken relocation of industry into their interior combined with continued influx of weaponry from the USSR itself would mean they would still have the means to continue fighting. It's thus conceivable they would have responded by by committing even more resources to the Korean theater in order to try and drive the Americans off. Even if they do throw in the towel, their aggrieved hostility to the Americans would see them now hold fast as Soviet allies, meaning no Sino-Soviet split.

Meanwhile, the expenditure of scarce American military resources that were already overstretched combined with the loss of political capitol among allies and third-parties (who were desperately against escalation) may have opened up avenues for the Soviets to act in the Middle East or Europe.

So the best case for the Americans here is they convince the Chinese to quit and relinquish Korea... at the cost of ensuring that China will remain a staunch Soviet ally for the foreseeable and possibly enabling further Soviet expansionism elsewhere, in regions that are much more vital to US interests then Korea.

 

[raharris1973]

@ObssesedNuker from the other place:

While MacArthur was insubordinate and undercut Washington's direction (which is why he was fired), I've never seen any evidence at the time that he actually threatened unilateral nuclear war. Truman claimed that was one of the reasons he fired MacArthur, but was later forced to retract his statements after MacArthur threatened him with legal action over it. Truman admitted that MacArthur never actually said any of that, but it was just Truman's impression that the general wanted to nuke China.

There was some contingency planning between MacArthur's HQ and the Joint Chiefs for the possible use of nuclear weapons against China, but there's no indication that was undertaken in a way that undercut Truman's authority.