Alternative History : could the United States have developed a non-nuclear ICBM or IRBM missile which could have hit Beijing by late 1950 from SK?

[TheRejectionist]

I didn't find anything that could have attested to do that in any of my research, so I was wondering what were your thoughts.

 

[Archibald]

https://www.distance.to/Seoul,KOR/Beijing,CHN

PGM-17 Thor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Problem of non nuclear at the time: guidance, CEP. That's why they put thermonuclear warheads on them, missing by a mile or two didn't really mattered.

 

[Dilandu]

I didn't find anything that could have attested to do that in any of my research, so I was wondering what were your thoughts.

Its possible, but why would anyone in 1950s bother to do it? Without nuclear warhead, it would be merely a rather inaccurate and very costly kinetic projectle; at most, an equivalent of a ton of explosives. And the political conseqiences would be as bad as from, say, bomber raid. So possible; just totally impractical.

 

[TheRejectionist]

https://www.distance.to/Seoul,KOR/Beijing,CHN

PGM-17 Thor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Problem of non nuclear at the time: guidance, CEP. That's why they put thermonuclear warheads on them, missing by a mile or two didn't really mattered.

What would resolve that in your opinion?

just totally impractical.

What would make it practical?

 

[TwoTribes]

More funding + lighter warheads (biological and chemical weapons).

Before 1950, a ballistic missile with a 100 kg warhead and a range of 1,000 km was possible.

 

[Dilandu]

What would make it practical?

In 1950s? Nothing. The technology isn't advanced enough to make non-nuclear IRBM a viable solution. The accuracy would be so low, and the cost so high, that nothing could really be achieved that way.

P.S. Why do you need such strange concept, I wonder?