Britain mulled nuclear strike on China over Hong Kong in 1961

[SABRE]

Was just going through DT news when I came across this interesting article. Really a must read.

Britain mulled nuclear strike on China over Hong Kong in 1961
​

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Fri, 30 Jun 2006, 01:28

LONDON: Britain discussed the possibility of a nuclear attack on China in 1961 to defend Hong Kong, its former colony, secret documents from the British government revealed Friday.

Letters circulated to then prime minister Harold Macmillan recommended nuclear force as the only real alternative to abandoning the territory in the event of an attack by the neighbouring Chinese.

British officials discussed how to ensure that Beijing understood any attack would be met by the United States dropping nuclear bombs on China.

At the same time, the plan needed to avoid laying Hong Kong open to the claim that it was becoming a military outpost of the United States.

Details of the discussions emerged from records of Macmillan's office between 1957 to 1961, which were made public by the National Archives.

The suggested nuclear strategy followed communications on how best to strengthen Hong Kong's defences amid growing uncertainty about the intentions of its communist neighbour.

Hong Kong was particularly vulnerable, not least because its water and food supplies from China could be cut off at any time.

On February 22 1961, then foreign secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home wrote a letter marked "top secret" to defence minister Harold Watkinson and the prime minister.

In it, he said: "It must be fully obvious to the Americans that Hong Kong is indefensible by conventional means and that in the event of a Chinese attack, nuclear strikes against China would be the only alternative to complete abandonment of the colony.

"In these circumstances it is perhaps not so much formal staff talks with the Americans that we need so much as an informal exchange of views involving a discussion of the use of nuclear strikes.

"I need hardly say, however, that I agree entirely with your view that while we should encourage the Chinese to believe that an attack on Hong Kong would involve nuclear retaliation, we must avoid anything that would allow the Chinese to claim that the colony is a military outpost of the Unites States."

Secret meetings with US officials took place in Hawaii and it was advised in 1961 that further talks should be held on board a US naval carrier, which frequently visited Hong Kong.

Another letter, from Watkinson to Douglas-Home and Macmillan, advised on how Lord Louis Mountbatten, chief of defence staff, should approach talks with admiral Harry Felt, commander-in-chief of the US Pacific forces.

He wrote: "Our object is to encourage the Chinese to believe that an attack on Hong Kong would involve US nuclear retaliation."

He also said Mountbatten believed Felt would ask him whether Britain's Royal Air Force would co-operate with a possible nuclear strike on China.

On this he wrote: "If this question is raised, I think he should say that he can make no commitment about what would happen, but that there would be no objection to discussion between admiral Felt and our military representatives in the Far East on the machinery for co-ordination if our nuclear strike forces ever had to operate with the Americans in this area."

Hong Kong, a British colony since 1842, was handed back to China in 1997.

Source: DefenceTalk News
Link: http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_006675.php

One question here. Why was Britain trying to get American Nuclear Force to strike the Chinese? What ever happened to Britain's Nuclear Strike Force & the V-Bombers?

AFAIK Britain had successfully detonated hydrogen bomb in 1957, over the Christmas Island (In the Pacific).

Britian ceased any further nuclear testings, but in 1961 resumed joint testings with USA near Nevada Desert test site. Hence, Britain had nuclear weapons in 1957-1958 & than in 1961, yet it pursues Americans to Nuke the China.

Not to forget the British Nuclear Capable V-Bombers were also there;

1. Valiant (1951)
2. Victor (1952)
3. Valcun (1952)

Valiants were removed from Service around 1965, but in 1961 they were available.

 

[Atlantic Friend]

Maybe the problem was the disponibility of UK air bases allowing the bombers to reach into China ?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

One question here. Why was Britain trying to get American Nuclear Force to strike the Chinese?

As Atlantic said, I would guess it would be because we wouldn't have been able to launch much of a retaliation due to our geographical location, leaving only the Americans in a position to do it.

 

[falconer21cn]

Because the UK didn't want to take the responsibily. This is the main reason. So as Chairman Mao said, all imperialism are paper tigers!

 

[Wild Weasel]

Actually, it seems that the real problem was not a lack of will on the part of the UK, but rather a lack of capability.
For this reason the UK would depend on the US ability to anihilate China, and the two allies were probably close enough in ideology to speak and act with one voice.

Had push led to shove, the outcome would have been the same as if the UK had the capability themselves- due to the massive hydrogen bombs of that ere, much of China would still be uninhabitable today.

It would be unwise to underestimate the will and firepower of the West as nothing more than "paper tigers."

 

[falconer21cn]

The UK had to think about it seriously, because nuking China would cause nuclear retaliation to themselves at that period of time. So the UK had this great idea, pulling the USA down water. If the nuclear attack on China had to be carried out, then the USA would be accused for it most but not the UK. And of coures the USA had to take more responsibility than the UK after it. So don't focus on the outcome only. In a word, the UK wanted to bully China by flaunting his powerful connection, the USA, and don't want to take the consequences.

 

[contedicavour]

The UK had to think about it seriously, because nuking China would cause nuclear retaliation to themselves at that period of time. So the UK had this great idea, pulling the USA down water. If the nuclear attack on China had to be carried out, then the USA would be accused for it most but not the UK. And of coures the USA had to take more responsibility than the UK after it. So don't focus on the outcome only. In a word, the UK wanted to bully China by flaunting his powerful connection, the USA, and don't want to take the consequences.

Using nuclear weapons would have been totally crazy and pointless. If China had wanted to retake HK back then it would still have had enough soliders to swamp Kowloon's defences.
Having said this, in 1961 China wasn't fully nuclear yet and would not have been able to retaliate against the UK (lack of ICBMs). Unless the then USSR had acted in China's defence.
Anyway, nothing (but last ditch defence of one's country) justifies using nuclear weapons.

 

[falconer21cn]

Using nuclear weapons would have been totally crazy and pointless. If China had wanted to retake HK back then it would still have had enough soliders to swamp Kowloon's defences.
Having said this, in 1961 China wasn't fully nuclear yet and would not have been able to retaliate against the UK (lack of ICBMs). Unless the then USSR had acted in China's defence.
Anyway, nothing (but last ditch defence of one's country) justifies using nuclear weapons.

Yes. China wasn't fully nuclear in 1961. It was in 1964 that China exploded first atom bomb. So the retaliate would be most likely from USSR although the relationship between the two countries was not so good at that time.Even if USSR refused to act in that event, the Chinese people would clearly keep in mind who nuked them and would definitely revenge the enemy in the same way in the future.So don't overestimate the firepower of the west and don't underestimate the will of the east. Korean war was a good example.
As for the retaking HK from the UK, we all know China did not spend a single soldier fee. It can be considered as the highest level in military strategy and tactics: Winning without fighting, the good people of good will.

 

[contedicavour]

Yes. China wasn't fully nuclear in 1961. It was in 1964 that China exploded first atom bomb. So the retaliate would be most likely from USSR although the relationship between the two countries was not so good at that time.Even if USSR refused to act in that event, the Chinese people would clearly keep in mind who nuked them and would definitely revenge the enemy in the same way in the future.So don't overestimate the firepower of the west and don't underestimate the will of the east. Korean war was a good example.
As for the retaking HK from the UK, we all know China did not spend a single soldier fee. It can be considered as the highest level in military strategy and tactics: Winning without fighting, the good people of good will.

Oh don't worry I'm far from underestimating the will of the "East" as you say. No doubt either that Hong Kong belongs to China and that your country's tactic (waiting it out) paid out fine.
My point, in relation to the news in this thread, was just (1) to state how crazy and morally unjustifiable a nuclear attack would have been and (2) that technically the UK could have pulled it out without risking immediate nuclear retaliation.

 

[Manfred]

Falconer-

I, for one, would not discount the will of the West any more than I would the material strength of the East in this century.

You have no further to look than the siege of Tsingtao in 1914, where German troops withstood ten times thier number of Japanese soldiers for two months, to know that there are exceptions to every rule.

Furthermore, calling the Korean War a victory for Communism is fantasy. the last two years of that war saw little change in position, it was a meaningless waste of life fought with World War I tactics where a gain of a few meters was unusual, and attrition was the word of the day... every day.

The last Asian superpower to risk its existance on the idea that oriental spirit counted for more than western material was the Empire of Japan. True, it is a different world today, but that Empire is not a part of it.

 

[falconer21cn]

Contedicavour, if you check my post above yours, you will find "Yes" at the very beginning. That means I am fully agree with you. Maybe you do not notice it, so I make it clear.

Falconer-
......
Furthermore, calling the Korean War a victory for Communism is fantasy.
......

I do not think Korean War was a victory at all. Neither Peng Dehuai did. If it was a victory, why Korean peninsula was still seperated into two deferent countries after so many Volunteers soldiers sacrificed? So in the Korean war, the East showed his will and the West showed his firepower. No winner, no loser.
As to the Empire of Japan, it's spirit can only represent itself. And that is totally different from China's. Japan never know how to conquer with eastern wisdom. Oh, I must stop now. It seems too far from the topic.

 

[Manfred]

Off topic? I suppose it is, sorry, my fault.

It just seems that the whole topic of using nuclear weapons comes back to willpower... or insanity. Is it possible that they will ever be used, or is it now possible to accomplish the same goals with purely conventional weapons?

 

[coldfire2005]

it was highlly unlikely to happen even in 60s chinese has a good force

 

[LtDragon]

Knowing the US and UK had nuclear weapons, China would not try to reatake HK by force. I think the usage of nuclear weapons by the West is pretty much trash talk. Good examples are the Korean and Viet Nam wars, the US could have just nukes the communist armies and ended the war there. Sudden Chinese reinforcement for North Korea, if nukes were considered they could have just nuked the Chinese camps or cities... So I don't think the West would use nuclear weapons unless... it's against the USSR if they attacked first.

 

[Grand Danois]

Knowing the US and UK had nuclear weapons, China would not try to reatake HK by force. I think the usage of nuclear weapons by the West is pretty much trash talk. Good examples are the Korean and Viet Nam wars, the US could have just nukes the communist armies and ended the war there. Sudden Chinese reinforcement for North Korea, if nukes were considered they could have just nuked the Chinese camps or cities... So I don't think the West would use nuclear weapons unless... it's against the USSR if they attacked first.

I memory serves me right, the US transferred nuclear weapons into theatre during the Korean War. General MacArthur actually wanted to nuke North Korea and China so much, that one of the reasons he got replaced with a more reliable commander by Truman, was in case if things came to that end.

 

[Rich]

I memory serves me right, the US transferred nuclear weapons into theatre during the Korean War. General MacArthur actually wanted to nuke North Korea and China so much, that one of the reasons he got replaced with a more reliable commander by Truman, was in case if things came to that end.

Britain told Truman they would withdraw support in Korea if the USA nuked China, or invaded them. In fact leaks in the British Govt. assured the Chinese that America would not nuke them, nor invade them, which led to Chinese grounds troops crossing the Yalu and throwing the coalition forces back out of the north.

So if the Brits were against using nukes 10 years earlier in Korea what are the chances they would be for using them in 1961? Other then the nuclear balance being better in 1961? I suspect this was nothing more then military/Political pipe dreaming. Did the Brits really think we would incinerate millions of Chinese over Islands they stole during their years of Empire, and on the other side of the world from them?

 

[mark22w]

Britain told Truman they would withdraw support in Korea if the USA nuked China, or invaded them. In fact leaks in the British Govt. assured the Chinese that America would not nuke them, nor invade them, which led to Chinese grounds troops crossing the Yalu and throwing the coalition forces back out of the north.

So if the Brits were against using nukes 10 years earlier in Korea what are the chances they would be for using them in 1961? Other then the nuclear balance being better in 1961? I suspect this was nothing more then military/Political pipe dreaming. Did the Brits really think we would incinerate millions of Chinese over Islands they stole during their years of Empire, and on the other side of the world from them?

Interesting times back then. Telling the US they can’t nuke China over Korea yet banking on China believing the US would strike over an attack on British territory… Sounds like an inexpensive way of safeguarding British subjects to me.

As to the last comment I don’t see much difference between the Treaty of Nanking (1842) and the Newlands Resolution (1898) – either way a dominant power took advantage of a weaker one. Some things never change.

The key point here was making the Chinese think it might, just might be a possibility.

 

[wp2000]

The possibility of Nuke attack during Korean war was a serious concern to China. You can see that in recent years chinese books about Korea. But in the end, but after long calculations, Mao decided to act.

This news actually makes me think, it's not that easy to threaten somebody with a nuke bomb, is it? In the 50s, nuke bombs pysco efffect was still fresh but when china choose to ignore it, what can you do? Now 60 years later, it's even harder to convince your rival that you really want to drop a nuke bomb on his head.

 

[ever4244]

Hypocrisy

Britain is never so benevolent that she will persuade US for the sake of china.It very true that British prime minister visit US during K war to persuade them not use tactics nuclearbomb which is highly demanded by Generals .but it s purely for their own good.

For one thing:they have not nuke themselves, So if US can use tactics bomb on china, what can stop Soviet using tactics bomb on Europe and free from full scale retaliation------remember in 1950s how eu fear soviet s invasion.

For another thing: korea war is not war wanted by eu country, they just fight for US.

that can also easily explain why their attitude turn sharp round in this issue .

1 Soviet is no longer china s ally in truth

2 Britain has his own relaliation ability

so why Soviet will revenge for china and call for Bratain s revenge therefore china is most vulnerable at that time.
If Britain can nuke us without pay price , I don t think they ll hesitate for their respectful "noble moral"

As for those who claim that western will not use NUKE lightly due to their moral,
I can only tell you western is as hypocrisy as they are hundreds years ago and they are not morally advanced than eastern world.Every infor and data show that they love nuke as much as Soviet(In fact soviet ,US , Britain all has plan to nuke china when we have not nuke) The strong will prey and weak will suffer is an eternal truth free from any country . Only thing can provent this is 1 tribute to content or 2 strength to resist.
BTW:as soon as china accessed to nuke power, she claimed to not use it first or against any nuke-free nation.
BTW2:I am not towards western country , just try to make you understand western and eastern are morally equal in this issue .