My perspective has been that the reason it was done was to demonstrate an ability and willingness. The U.S. knew is was in position to dominate the world and the bomb made it clear who was the new boss, testing wasn't enough.
This is correct, the bomb was primarily a threat to Russia and China. Which is why both expedited development of nuclear arms after the war. They knew that if they didn't the US would use them (almost certainly would have in Korea and Vietnam without deterrence and MAD back channels)
Almost definitely IMO, but you should listen to season 3 of blowback to get an idea of the Korean War and who was pushing to drop the bomb and who was not. Its important to note that the bomb at that point was undergoing the shift from Atomic fission bombs to Hydrogen thermonuclear bombs.
I know that the politics behind the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea, but would that be defendable politically without a mobilized public willing to make the use of nuclear weapons taboo?
Name a weapon banned in war that wasn't deployed in war.
IIRC a lot of the gasses that were used in WW1 were banned before they were even used, or similar gasses to them were outlawed/banned in a wide blanket.
My perspective has been that the reason it was done was to demonstrate an ability and willingness. The U.S. knew is was in position to dominate the world and the bomb made it clear who was the new boss, testing wasn't enough.
This is correct, the bomb was primarily a threat to Russia and China. Which is why both expedited development of nuclear arms after the war. They knew that if they didn't the US would use them (almost certainly would have in Korea and Vietnam without deterrence and MAD back channels)
I doubt it was a threat to China given China wasn't communist yet
If the bomb was only tested and not dropped, would the bomb have been dropped in Korea?
Almost definitely IMO, but you should listen to season 3 of blowback to get an idea of the Korean War and who was pushing to drop the bomb and who was not. Its important to note that the bomb at that point was undergoing the shift from Atomic fission bombs to Hydrogen thermonuclear bombs.
I know that the politics behind the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea, but would that be defendable politically without a mobilized public willing to make the use of nuclear weapons taboo?
Name a weapon banned in war that wasn't deployed in war.
IIRC a lot of the gasses that were used in WW1 were banned before they were even used, or similar gasses to them were outlawed/banned in a wide blanket.