首先先來看一篇外交家2016寫的文章, 之前就有人假設了這個情節
直接跳到對戰爭的影響和對未來的影響
Effect on the War
對戰爭的影響
It’s best to understand the immediate impact of the atomic bomb in context
of the use of airpower in the Korean War. Atomic weapons might have had a
surprisingly small effect on the war itself. Notwithstanding the success of
the MiG-15 against U.S. bomber formations, the United States largely
controlled the sky over the Korean Peninsula, with B-29s delivering
devastating airstrikes at the time and place of their choosing. The atomic
bombs on 1950 did not yet have the power of the thermonuclear weapons
developed later in the decade. When employed for tactical purposes, these
bombs would have amounted to not much more than very large explosives.
對於使用原子彈的影響需先了解韓戰中空軍的腳色。原子彈其實對戰爭本身扮演
令人驚訝的小的影響。儘管當時米格15成功的對美轟炸機產生影響，但韓戰本身
美國空軍已經掌握著整個朝鮮半島的制空權，B29轟炸機可以在任何時間、任何地點
丟下威力十足的炸彈，要知道1950年代的原子彈並不像數十年後的核彈等如此強大
因此如果使用戰術性的原子彈攻擊，這些就如同一個很大的爆炸而已
Employed against dispersed Chinese and North Korean forces, the limited
number of bombs available to the U.S. Air Force (which had to conserve many
weapons for use against the Soviets) might have had only a limited effect on
the ability of China to mobilize forces and move them to the front. Moreover,
the relatively primitive nature of infrastructure in North Korea and
Manchuria would have worked against the effectiveness of the bombs on staging
and logistics centers.
用在前線分散的中國志願軍和朝鮮軍身上，其實產生的效益有限，尤其是美國空軍又要
保留著這些大招對付真正的對手蘇聯。再者，對相對原始的朝鮮或中國東北的工業設施而言
相對的效果也有限
What about juicier targets, such as Beijing or Shanghai? In 1950, the USAF
remained committed to the idea that wars could be won through the destruction
of civilian industry and infrastructure, and that such targets could be most
readily found in cities. The USAF would soon demonstrate this conviction by
leveling Pyongyang in a long series of conventional raids. Even this might
not have had a decisive effect on the war. At the first sign of nuclear
escalation, the elite of the CCP would have dispersed from the capital and
the major cities. The propaganda value of the abject annihilation of hundreds
of thousands of Chinese civilians probably would have outweighed any military
advantage gained by the United States.
那如果是打擊一些中國核心的城市，如上海、北京呢？ 1950年代美國空軍還是秉持一套
勝利是建立在毀滅敵方民間工業與建設的思維上，因此合理的目標應是在人口密集的都會
區。美國空軍應會先在平壤等地進行密集的空襲試驗，儘管對戰爭未必會有決定性的影響。
而對中國共產黨而言，一旦有最初步的蛛絲馬跡顯示核危機要升級，則共產黨菁英們
就會逃離首都和主要的大城去避難，且這種卑賤的殲滅對方上萬平民的手段造成的輿論
災難可能會超越對戰爭帶來的實質效益
Effect on the Future
對未來的影響
Scholars have long debated the existence of the “nuclear taboo.” Do states
refrain from using nukes because of impracticality, or do they view nuclear
weapons as fundamentally immoral? The Korean War provided an important test
case, because the United States had nukes, while North Korea and China did
not. Moreover, few American policymakers believed that the Soviets would use
any of their few primitive devices on behalf of Pyongyang or Beijing. The
United States did not shy away from using strategic weapons (B-29s) for
tactical purpose against North Korea; what message would the use of the Bomb
have sent?
學者們討論核禁忌的話題已久，究竟限制核武是基於不切實際，還是本質上的不道德？
韓戰都是一個重要的試驗場，畢竟美軍持有核武而當時中朝並無，除此之外，當時美國
學者也普遍認為蘇聯不太可能為了中朝報復使用它們僅有的核武。美國在此氛圍下
若對朝鮮使用核武會傳達出什麼樣的訊息？
We know that Truman worried about the optics of using the weapon against two
(or possibly three, depending on targeting decisions) different Asian
countries. We also know that U.S. allies in Europe were very nervous about
the prospect of having to politically defend the use of atomic weapons
against China. While it’s possible to list these reservations under either “
morality” or “practicality,” it’s also quite likely that using atomic
weapons against China would have lowered the psychological and bureaucratic
thresholds for using them in future conflicts against non-nuclear powers.
杜魯門當時其實很擔心對亞洲2-3個城市進行核打擊造成的公眾輿論。
美國的歐洲盟友們很擔心假若美國可以用政治理由辯護使用原子武器的影響
假若可以用道德或實用性辯護對中朝使用核子武器，則未來對非核武國家
使用核子武器的門檻勢必會降低
https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/what-if-the-united-states-had-used-the-bomb-in-korea/
回到推文，有推文說就會贏得韓戰
但不管是效益上或道德上都說不過去
日本是因為發動二戰和侵略
1945年日本的人口大量集中在都市區
因此效果明顯
但朝鮮就是在打游擊, 而中國當時乃二戰戰勝國身分, 站在正義的高點
進行核打擊師出無名
因此就可能像文章說的沒啥效果又被輿論逆轉
如此解釋杜魯門把麥帥換了
※ 引述《Qoo2222 (Qoo2222)》之銘言：
: 當年韓戰美國和中國陷入僵局時
: 麥克阿瑟建議當局直接賞中國一個痛快 一次丟30個原子彈
: 最後當然是沒丟
: 如果當年直接丟中國30個原子彈
: 現在世界會怎樣？