R. McD in one of his paragraphs refers to Philip Green and Herman Kahn. This brings back memories
Phil Green and I grew up in a neighborhood in Queens, New York called Sunnyside. I have been told, although I was too young to remember this, that he and I on occasion rode together in the same baby carriage.
Herman Kahn was my great nemesis in my early days in the nuclear disarmament movement. At one point I debated him publicly at Jordan Hall in Boston. I wrote a scathing attack on his book, On Thermonuclear War, for The New Republic.
Back then, it was possible to think that we would win the fight.
9 comments:
In one significant sense, you did win the fight. Herman Kahn's position that a nuclear war could be winnable never gained widespread acceptance, even among the nuclear strategists whom Fred Kaplan labeled "the wizards of Armageddon" in his book of that title. Except in the hands of a few outliers like Kahn, the goal of deterrence theory remained...deterrence.
P.s. In the previous thread, I said I would stop commenting here. I think I will make this officially my last comment. I've enjoyed some of the posts and the exchanges, so thank you for that.
I remember Kahn came up before, and that I thought he construed his agenda rather differently than some. The United States adjusted its strategy in the 1960s
and 1970s to emphasize “flexible response” over massive retaliation. The strategic rationale for developing limited nuclear options was to demonstrate to Soviet leaders that U.S. escalation threats were credible. See how Soviet policy began to shift in the mid-1960s, and by the 1970s, the Soviets were entertaining concepts of limited nuclear strikes in Europe. I gather the impression that the United States developed theories of tactical nuclear warfare, but was never positive that it could keep a nuclear war in Europe limited and local. And, that Soviet planners reached similar conclusions. Anyways, NATO and the Warsaw Pact never engaged in a major European conflict. Maybe the question becomes one of contemporary U.S. adversaries.
From Ellsberg's Doomsday: In his discussion of what was then (1960) a new overarching plan to attack the USSR in an all out war with nuclear weapons (Single Integrated Operations Plan or SIOP), Ellsberg reveals that the anticipated Soviet death toll would be 100 million, with the attack on China killing 300 million. A question to General Power (SAC commander): "What if this is just a war with the Soviets? Can you change the plan?" "Well, yeah," said Power, "we can but I hope nobody thinks of it, because it would really screw up the plan." Eisenhower, along with the JCS, had approved the plan.
When in July 1961, the NSC highly secretive Net Evaluation Subcommittee, JFK asked about the death toll regarding a scenario, approved by Eisenhower, similar numbers were projected and JFK famously walked out of the meeting, saying to Dean Rusk, "And we call ourselves the human race."
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb480/
So Kahn's promulgations were gaining acceptance at high levels, while JFK's thinking was more in solidarity with at least one young militant scholar, no acolyte to be sure.
With apologies to our host...
Jerry Fresia, you had an exchange in a recent discussion here in which you cited Gerald Horne's work on the motives of the American anticolonists in the American colonial revolution. (I'm glad it was you who took the heat, because it could just as easily have been me making the argument you made. lol) You might be interested in two items:
I'm sure by now you have probably already seen this scathing review of "The Counter-Revolution of 1776" by the seemingly pseudonymous Fred Schleger-
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/18/horn-m18.html
And more recently there is this video interview with historian Anthony Monteiro, who is a long-time friend of Horne.
"[Gerald] makes mistakes [in some of his books], sometimes carelessness, too fast." (I am not endorsing all of the views expressed by Monteiro in the interview. Just offering his view specifically on Horne, with Monteiro being someone who knows and respects Horne but is critical of some of his work.)
@ ~1:01:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfQvPadgh4I&t=3674s
I mentioned yesterday that Ellsberg had discovered that there was a top-secret nuclear war strategy plan that was so secret the Pentagon wouldn't even allow the Secretary of Defense and White House to see it, and I suggested that while we like to think things have improved since then, there are signs that things may not have improved as much as we would like.
I came across this article last night, after writing that post.
"Documents Shed Light on Secret U.S. Plans for Apocalyptic Scenarios
Dating back to 1950s preparations for nuclear war and revised after the Sept. 11 attacks, the presidential directives are not shown to Congress....
'The bottom line is that these documents leave no doubt that the post-9/11 emergency actions documents have direct and significant implications for Americans’ civil liberties,' said Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. 'And yet, there is no oversight by Congress. And that’s unacceptable.'"
The article says that House Democrats passed a bill in 2021, subequently stalled in the Senate, that would have imposed some limits on presidential authority. But from skimming the text of the bill, I don't see that it would have made any significant difference in terms of Congressional oversight of Executive authority in event of a catastrophic event or in terms of planning for military, including nuclear, engagements.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/internet-president-emergency-orders.html
I'm curious about the 20th century history equivalent of Gerald Horne. I might have to have an opinion about which Crank amateur historian is better informed than lowbrow rivals, but take my point to be that I have no idea how we got into this, or why.
Gerald Horne, is the 20th century history equivalent of Gerald Horne:
https://convergencemag.com/articles/the-white-republic-response-by-gerald-horne/
If I may: Democratic voters drift toward the middle, the Republican Party's adherents are shifting further to the right, it's happening quickly.
Post a Comment