Response to Pip

Pip,

I think you make 2 good points. First, it is true that LeMay was willing to use the nuclear weapons under his command. He instituted the reform in training I mentioned not just to appear ready but to actually be ready to launch a nuclear attack. Being prepared and willing to launch thermonuclear weapons capable of killing of millions is quite distasteful and alarming. The outcome, however, was that the US nuclear deterrent was far more credible thus ensuring caution was maintained on both sides. The US and USSR were further away from nuclear war as a result. For deterrence to work the USSR had to believe that the US was “crazy” enough to use them. LeMay seem to fit in well here, as you noticed, he was crazy enough. The extreme nature of this situation partially explains the shift to a limited war strategy. One of the appeals of limited war was that it was “a plea for moderation in political rhetoric.” (Freedman 92)

The second point you make, which I agree entirely with, is that the decision to use nuclear weapons should not be left in the hands of the military. I think this is true not just in the case of nukes but for all use of military force. It’s wise to keep these decisions in the realm of civilians for several reasons. Some of these reasons get into psychology and organizational thought. If you ask a military leader for a solution to a national threat he will likely offer up a military solution to it, just as a diplomat will probably first consider diplomacy. While I think the decisions on use of force should remain in the hands of civil leadership I think that the way the force is employed should be left to the military leadership (with civilian oversight) who have studied it extensively. This, interestingly enough, brings us to MacNamara (as he was a notorious micro-manager). If interested, he has an article on nuclear weapons in a recent issue of Foreign Policy. I personally have mixed thoughts on his views, especially after reading his book Wilson’s Ghost. I agree with his direction and ultimate goals, it’s his idea on how to get there that I am not on board with. They seem a little unrealistic. Its almost as if he is riddled with guilt from his past and is struggling to make up for it, which does not make for clear judgement.

Sean