scholarly journals The Truman Administration and Non-use of the Atomic Bomb During the Korean War, June 1950 to January 1953

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Malcolm MacMillan Craig

<p>This thesis examines the Truman administration's non-use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War, June 1950 to January 1953. It investigates the entirety of the Truman administration's experience of the Korean War, rather than focusing on certain key periods. By examining official documentation, memoirs, newspaper reports, and information about public opinion, this thesis explains why the Truman administration chose not to utilise the atomic arsenal. It examines the opinions and influence of significant decision makers such as President Harry S. Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and Director of the Policy Planning Staff Paul H. Nitze. Truman, as president and ultimate decision maker, will be paid special attention, not least on account of his unique experience of having ordered the atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. This thesis also looks into the position of high-ranking military officers, such as General Omar N. Bradley, General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, and General Matthew B. Ridgway. In order to explain non-use, this thesis also investigates the influence of foreign allies and foreign opinion, particularly that expressed by the United Kingdom, the United States' most important ally. The role of public opinion within the United States is also considered. By examining in detail all of these factors and building a composite picture of the forces acting upon the administration, this thesis provides a more rounded and nuanced view of non-use by the Truman administration during the Korean War than that offered by the existing scholarship. It demonstrates that non-use was always a complex and problematic matter.</p>

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Malcolm MacMillan Craig

<p>This thesis examines the Truman administration's non-use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War, June 1950 to January 1953. It investigates the entirety of the Truman administration's experience of the Korean War, rather than focusing on certain key periods. By examining official documentation, memoirs, newspaper reports, and information about public opinion, this thesis explains why the Truman administration chose not to utilise the atomic arsenal. It examines the opinions and influence of significant decision makers such as President Harry S. Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, and Director of the Policy Planning Staff Paul H. Nitze. Truman, as president and ultimate decision maker, will be paid special attention, not least on account of his unique experience of having ordered the atomic attacks on Japan in 1945. This thesis also looks into the position of high-ranking military officers, such as General Omar N. Bradley, General Hoyt S. Vandenberg, and General Matthew B. Ridgway. In order to explain non-use, this thesis also investigates the influence of foreign allies and foreign opinion, particularly that expressed by the United Kingdom, the United States' most important ally. The role of public opinion within the United States is also considered. By examining in detail all of these factors and building a composite picture of the forces acting upon the administration, this thesis provides a more rounded and nuanced view of non-use by the Truman administration during the Korean War than that offered by the existing scholarship. It demonstrates that non-use was always a complex and problematic matter.</p>


2019 ◽  
pp. 40-64
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Robb ◽  
David James Gill

This chapter discusses events in Malaya and Korea, which, when viewed together, help explain progress toward closer cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand slowly developed elements of strategic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region following crises in Malaya and Korea between 1948 and 1951. The extent of cooperation varied between states and rarely reflected purely strategic concerns. Whereas New Zealand supported the United Kingdom in the Malayan Emergency, the United States and Australia were initially far more cautious in offering assistance. Although the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand did support the United States in the Korean War, their efforts also reflected attempts to build closer strategic relations, generate diplomatic capital, and restrain their superpower ally from escalating the conflict. In both instances, all four states held different assumptions about the causes and management of conflict. Divergent national interests therefore weakened a coherent and united response to the Communist challenge from the Western powers.


Author(s):  
Gregg A. Brazinsky

This chapter shows how the PRC’s search for greater status brought with it new obligations. China’s desire to stand at the helm of an Eastern revolution compelled the CCP to offer assistance to other Asian revolutionaries. The chapter argues that this mindset was a key factor in Beijing’s decisions to enter the Korean War and provide training and assistance to the Viet Minh. The United States, on the other hand, sought to prevent the PRC from gaining stature through its role in these conflicts. It often cited deflating China’s prestige in Asia as a motive for both fighting on in Korea and aiding the French in Indochina.


Author(s):  
Heike Wieters

Chapter 3 is a case study on CARE’s work in Korea during and after the Korean War. It traces CARE’s response to a presidential aid appeal in the United States, shows how American NGOs competed for donor dollars and media attention. In addition, it depicts the difficulties private humanitarian players encountered in a foreign setting involving a refugee crisis and a tight web of players with different stakes, meaning military players, Korean and United States government agencies, United Nations organizations as well as diverse foreign aid agencies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document