From the Stars and Stripes archives
Life-saving role seen for A-arms in Korea
TOKYO, Feb. 12 (INS) — General James A. Van Fleet, retired Eighth Army commander, declared upon his arrival in Tokyo yesterday that the use of America's new atomic tactical weapons could save Allied lives on the stalemated Korean war front.
The general also declared that the United Nations troops he led for 22 months are ready for an immediate offensive which would break the prolonged military deadlock.
In one of a series of questions submitted to him as he flew out of Korea, Van Fleet was asked:
"WOULD IT BE militarily feasible to use atomic weapons — would it save lives — in breaking the vast network of enemy tunnel defenses which have so far withstood massed United Nations artillery and air attack?"
The general replied:
"The Department of the Army has announced the development of atomic weapons for tactical use in the field.
"Their use unquestionably would save friendly lives in an immediate situation on any battlefield."
Van Fleet was asked whether the Eighth Army would, by a sustained offensive, destroy enough enemy manpower and materiel to injure Communist China's war-making potential seriously.
"Yes," the general replied emphatically.
THE QUESTIONS submitted to Van Fleet and his answers follow:
1) Q. Is the Eighth Army at the present time capable, in terms of manpower and materiel, of mounting a major offensive that would break the present military deadlock? A. Certainly. Any offensive would break the military deadlock, which is one of our choosing and not imposed by the enemy.
2) Q. Would it be more advantageous militarily to establish the U.N. line across the waist of Korea or along the Yalu river, or would that give the Communists an added advantage by shortening their supply lines and putting U.N. troops closer to Red airfields? A. No comment.
3) Q. Could the Eighth Army, by any sustained offensive, destroy sufficient enemy manpower and materiel to seriously injure the war-making potential of Communist China? A. It would depend upon the Chinese Communists — what investment in manpower and materiel they would be willing to make in the face of such an offensive. Q. Does this mean the more they throw at the U.N. the more the Allies could chop up? A. Yes.
4) Q. What would be the price in. casualties of breaking the Chinese main defense belt by frontal assault now without coordinated amphibious operations or a paratroop drop? A. No comment.
5) Q. Would it be militarily feasible to use atomic weapons — would it save lives — in breaking the vast network of enemy tunnel defenses which so far have withstood massed U.N. artillery and air attack? A. The Department of the Army has announced the development of atomic weapons for tactical use in the field. Their use unquestionably would save friendly lives in the immediate situation on any battlefield.
6) Q. Are the U.N. defenses strong enough to withstand an onslaught by the 2,000 planes the Reds reportedly have in Manchuria? A. Yes. A concerted air effort by the enemy would hurt the Eighth Army only temporarily. But it would recover quickly and strongly.
7) Q. Could ROK troops now spearhead any U.N. offensive attempting to drive the Communists out of Korea? A. No comment.
8) Q. Have the people of America and rest of the world been sufficiently aware of the overwhelming importance of the struggle against Communist aggression in Korea and the tremendous sacrifices being made there? A. I believe and hope so.
9) Q. Could the U.N. launch an offensive and bring sufficient military pressure to bear to conclude peace, while keeping the conflict isolated in Korea, or has the delay since the summer of 1951 so altered the situation as to make that solution impossible? A. No comment.
10) Q. Since December has there been any sign of increasing enemy preparation for offense or defense, especially in the Kaesong neutral area? A. Yes, a continuous build-up.
11) Q. Do you believe that pressure against China itself combined with pressure on this front would force the Chinese to come to terms? A. No comment.
12) Q. Has the North Korean army been rebuilt to the point where it is once more a formidable force of about 600,000 men, capable of matching the ROKs? A. The NKPA has been rebuilt, but it is not able to recover from its destruction in 1950 and 1951.Nor is it match for the ROK army of today
13) Q. Can South Korea economically support a million man army? A. No.
