How did the development of nuclear weapons make the Korean war worse or better

Question

03-11-2020
History

contestada

How did the development of nuclear weapons make the Korean war worse or better

Respuesta :

Otras preguntas

. Read the passage. My mother groand! my father wept. Into the dangerous world I leapt, Helpless, naked, piping loud; Like a fiend hid in a cloud. Which idea is

Ms. Johnson uses a statistics program to analyze all the data collected by her students during a lab experiment about the acceleration due to gravity. The progr

Graph the system of equations. {x−y=64x+y=4

Three wyd you can use medicine safely

november of even-numbered years as a bill social security start if each term of congress legislative assistant foreign relations ways & means 2years

Is the answer D When the Cold War ended, what happened to the Soviet Union? It became a communist nation. It came under the rule of a king. It isolated itself

Which of these statements describe the outcome of the Berlin airlift? Check all of the boxes that apply.

Miller's approach in designing this poster is best described as

Keeping your interview appointment and arriving on time are both _____.

Reverend Rector stepped up to his pulpit and glowered at his flock. "It's becoming obvious," he began, "that the devil himself is among us. I hear that members

Frich4333 Frich4333 · Answer 1 · 2020-11-03T04:25:41+01:00

Throughout the dramatic invasions and counter-invasions that defined the Korean War the United States retained a ready nuclear arsenal. Supreme and peerless in atomic might even when compared to the nascent Soviet capability, America enjoyed the singular capacity to destroy Chinese war-making capability on a strategic level, and to substantially degrade ground formations at the operational and tactical levels. Despite serious consideration, American decision makers chose to fight to a high-consumption and high-cost war through conventional means rather than employing the unparalleled power of nuclear technology. This choice of atomic non-use set the precedent for an enduring tradition of nuclear restraint that remains in effect today.

spenser10 spenser10 · Answer 2 · 2020-11-03T04:26:45+01:00

Answer: worse see explanation

Explanation: Throughout the dramatic invasions and counter-invasions that defined the Korean War the United States retained a ready nuclear arsenal. Supreme and peerless in atomic might even when compared to the nascent Soviet capability, America enjoyed the singular capacity to destroy Chinese war-making capability on a strategic level, and to substantially degrade ground formations at the operational and tactical levels. Despite serious consideration, American decision makers chose to fight to a high-consumption and high-cost war through conventional means rather than employing the unparalleled power of nuclear technology. This choice of atomic non-use set the precedent for an enduring tradition of nuclear restraint that remains in effect today.

Six years after the United States decisively defeated the Empire of Japan with atomic weapons it engaged in another costly ground war in East Asia. From June of 1950 to July of 1953, in a bloody confrontation of competing geo-political ideologies and spheres of influence, America supported its ally, South Korea, against North Korea and its benefactor, China, in an effort to contain the encroaching threat of Soviet-sponsored Communism. Throughout this war of conventional maneuver, the United Nations expeditionary forces suffered two major reversals, lost over 36,000 soldiers, and faced the specter of strategic defeat by ‘Red’ armies without ever resorting to atomic intervention.[1] With the onset of stalemate and armistice in July of 1953, the American-led alliance never decisively won the conflict.

Throughout the dramatic invasions and counter-invasions that defined the contest for control of the Korean Peninsula the United States retained a ready nuclear arsenal. Supreme and peerless in atomic might even when compared to the nascent Soviet capability, America enjoyed the singular capacity to destroy Chinese war-making capability on a strategic level, and to substantially degrade ground formations at the operational and tactical levels. Despite serious consideration, American decision makers chose to fight to a high-consumption and high-cost war through conventional means rather than employing the unparalleled power of nuclear technology. This choice of atomic non-use set the precedent for an enduring tradition of nuclear restraint that remains in effect today.