Talk-Polywell.org

A while back, in one of the military history discussions, there was mention for a couple of posts of one high ranking American officer who'd argued that there ought to have been no compromises made to crush the Russians to nothing, while they were particularly vulnerable from some setback or other. He was noted as accomplished and as knowing what he was talking about, not delusional at all.

Only his plan was just too uncompromising and obviously never implemented. This was sometime after WWII or Cold War era at the latest. Does anyone remember who this man was? I'd like to follow up on research but lost the bookmark since.

Thanks.

At the end of WWII, General George Patton was ready to push the Soviets back, if sufficiently provoked, but probably not crush them. General Curtis LeMay is reputed to have made statements about "bombing them back to the Stone Age" but I can't find a quick and reliable citation. Who the "them" were, I can't remember.

Betruger wrote:A while back, in one of the military history discussions, there was mention for a couple of posts of one high ranking American officer who'd argued that there ought to have been no compromises made to crush the Russians to nothing, while they were particularly vulnerable from some setback or other. He was noted as accomplished and as knowing what he was talking about, not delusional at all.

Only his plan was just too uncompromising and obviously never implemented. This was sometime after WWII or Cold War era at the latest. Does anyone remember who this man was? I'd like to follow up on research but lost the bookmark since.

Thanks.

I'm pretty sure you are referring to Curtis LeMay. I have repeatedly argued that we should have followed his plan, which was to prevent the Russians from ever getting the ability to attack us with nukes.

LeMay was the man who was in charge of bombing Japan into capitulation. What many people don't know is that by the time we Nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Curtis LeMay had already bombed the crap out of most Japanese cities. He had to take those cities off of the target list just so the Atomic bomb crews would have targeta left to hit!

He is also the architect of Berlin Air Lift, and he was also basically the creator of SAC (Strategic Air Command.) At one time it was completely within his power to launch an all out nuclear attack against Russia, and it is a testament to his faithfulness that he never initiated such an attack, though he advocated it continuously.

rjaypeters wrote:At the end of WWII, General George Patton was ready to push the Soviets back, if sufficiently provoked, but probably not crush them. General Curtis LeMay is reputed to have made statements about "bombing them back to the Stone Age" but I can't find a quick and reliable citation. Who the "them" were, I can't remember.

Details on Curtis LeMay's activities and attitudes can be found in "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and "Dark Sun, the Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" both by Richard Rhodes, and both quite good.

In "Dark Sun", Rhodes lays out much of the machinations initiated by Curtis LeMay, and it leaves no question as to what LeMay felt needed to be done. In fact, based on the information in that book, it appears that LeMay was very nearly courting mutiny, and he may actually have gone over the line. It is unquestionable that he was conducting over flights of the Soviet Union without the Knowledge and/or permission of President Eisenhower. An act which later cause a severe diplomatic crisis between the US and Soviet governments.

In the Early parts of the cold war, LeMay actually had American bomber aircraft flying over and radar targeting all major Soviet cities.

LeMay it is, thanks.

D,

I would give you an A+ in strategy and an F- in grand strategy.

A power should be feared. But not too much. Because surrender is preferable to war. That was the genius of WW2. We forced unconditional surrender and then treated the surrendered real nice.

OK we bomb Russia into the stone age. Then what? Treat them like dogs? Or are we then responsible for Russia? And if we are not responsible for Russia what happens when coalitions unite against us? More nukes?

"Then what?" is a critical question in grand strategy.

MSimon wrote:D,

I would give you an A+ in strategy and an F- in grand strategy.

A power should be feared. But not too much. Because surrender is preferable to war. That was the genius of WW2. We forced unconditional surrender and then treated the surrendered real nice.

OK we bomb Russia into the stone age. Then what? Treat them like dogs? Or are we then responsible for Russia? And if we are not responsible for Russia what happens when coalitions unite against us? More nukes?

"Then what?" is a critical question in grand strategy.

The initial plan was to bomb their nuke building facilities and leave the rest of the country alone. Even the Russian Nuke Scientists thought we would do this and every day lived in fear that American Bombers would be flying over the horizon to hit them.

The later plan of bombing the entire Soviet Union was a fall back position because of the failure to act early enough to implement the original plan.


As I have pointed out previously, Curtis LeMay executed his plans and strategy to perfection, and they all worked exactly as he engineered them to work. I would say he doubtlessly had the judgment and experience necessary to view things in terms of short term and long term strategy. He had more facts at his disposal than anyone else at that time, and he advised a particular course of action.


I think we should have followed it.

I would say he doubtlessly had the judgment and experience necessary to view things in terms of short term and long term strategy.

Well no. He failed to realize the value of holding them until they failed on their own.

i.e. he would have encouraged: "The Soviet System was a workable system and would have worked if it hadn't been for America nuking them."

Nuking the Soviets would have strengthened socialism and weakened America. Wiser heads prevailed.

Consider that holding Russia helped China capitulate without a war. Very handy that. China joined the "American system" voluntarily. Think of the animosity if we had to go to war to get that result. I mean just look at the shite storm in this country until the American Indians more or less got over it. And that was a population of at most a few million. People carry grudges. Sometimes for centuries. You want to avoid that as much as possible.

Grand strategy is ephemeral in that you have to gauge how people will feel about an event.

MSimon wrote:

I would say he doubtlessly had the judgment and experience necessary to view things in terms of short term and long term strategy.

Well no. He failed to realize the value of holding them until they failed on their own.

i.e. he would have encouraged: "The Soviet System was a workable system and would have worked if it hadn't been for America nuking them."

Nuking the Soviets would have strengthened socialism and weakened America. Wiser heads prevailed.

Consider that holding Russia helped China capitulate without a war. Very handy that. China joined the "American system" voluntarily. Think of the animosity if we had to go to war to get that result. I mean just look at the shite storm in this country until the American Indians more or less got over it. And that was a population of at most a few million. People carry grudges. Sometimes for centuries. You want to avoid that as much as possible.

Grand strategy is ephemeral in that you have to gauge how people will feel about an event.

You are assuming a probability for an outcome that owes as much to luck as anything else, and calling it a successful strategy. We are LOTTERY-WINNING-LUCKY that events worked out the way they did. We very nearly got nuke incinerated at least twice by following this "let's hope for the best" plan. Had Stanislav Petrov been a more typical Soviet officer, we would now be suffering from probably a half billion dead people and regions of the planet uninhabitable.


Have you ever seen the movie "Mulan" where the grand mother walks through a crowded market street blindfolded with the "magic cricket" protecting her from harm? She nearly gets run over and killed several times! When she makes it across the street in spite of her folly, she credits the "Magic Cricket" for keeping her safe. That is an apt analogy for what happened to us. And now you claim that reliance on the "Magic Cricket" was a BRILLIANT strategy?

It was the most fool hardy thing we could have done! The fact that it worked did not mean it was likely to work. It was likely to have had the effect we avoided, but for luck.

You can defend the "Hide our heads in the sand strategy", now that nothing bad has happened, but had it resulted in it's most likely outcome, you would be cursing the fools who didn't obliterate the threat before it became so horrible, much as people now renounce those who didn't stop Hitler before HE became dangerous.

LeMay's strategy was to do at the beginning of the cold war what everyone is saying we should have done prior to World War II. Stop the threat from becoming so dire! It's advice we should have heeded. The stakes were so grave that no one should have gambled them.

You are assuming a probability for an outcome that owes as much to luck as anything else

It is only luck if you assume the Soviet System could have worked. Other wise it was certain. The only unpredictable thing was when not if.

Besides you are aware that military outcomes often turn on the unpredictable? That is why that even in official war gaming you roll the dice.

This has been a classic in the field for over 60 years. Still in print:

Strategy

You might want to have a look.

MSimon wrote:

You are assuming a probability for an outcome that owes as much to luck as anything else

It is only luck if you assume the Soviet System could have worked. Other wise it was certain. The only unpredictable thing was when not if.

Oh, the Soviet system did work for awhile. You were apparently willing to gamble that they would run down before they built up enough to kill us. This is like gambling that Fidel Castro wouldn't be able to rule Cuba for 50 years. He'd eventually get old and die or something. We all know how that worked out.


The FACT is, the Soviets DID manage to build enough weapons to utterly wipe us out! Gambling that they would eventually be too pooped to hit us is what they call "Hand Waving" in the physics community.


It was an utterly foolish gamble, and it WAS sheer luck that we didn't have a nuclear exchange.

MSimon wrote: Besides you are aware that military outcomes often turn on the unpredictable? That is why that even in official war gaming you roll the dice.

No question about it. The Battle of Midway is an example. Of COURSE i'd rather be lucky than good any day of the week, but a person who plans are entirely based on luck is foolish. The military will rely on luck when they must. The rest of the time they prefer to plan for a certain outcome. Curtis LeMay's plan would have yielded a certain outcome, no luck required. That outcome would have guaranteed a defanged Soviet Union, and therefore eliminated the possibility of millions of dead Americans.

Why should we have gambled the fate of millions, possibly billions for some hand waving theory?

MSimon wrote: This has been a classic in the field for over 60 years. Still in print:

Strategy

You might want to have a look.

Does it say you should give your enemy a respite in his quest to build weapons which can utterly destroy you? If so, it might need a new addition.

The "Stone Age" quote was a little out of context. As I recall it was specific to the Korean War.

Edit: Correction, It was the Vietnam War, quoted in '65. But was not directed at the Russian's, just the North Vietnamese, and not with Nukes.
I leave the below intact as a stage setter going in to the 60's. But, I still think there was a Stone Age comment during Korean War discussions at the Cabinet level. Have to dig a bit. Not sure.

The other thing to consider is that coming out of WWII and through Korea, the SOviets did not have a credible capability to hit the US. They had a B-29 copy, (Tu-4?), and not so many bombs (well less than 100, even less than 50 I think). At that point we could have put the big smack on with no direct risk to the homeland. The real issue lay in the Soviets putting the smack on Europe (again) and at that point would have been very difficult to recover from given how far we were in the hole trying to refill it with the Marshall Plan.
The Soviets did not gain a credible mainland US threat until late 50's early 60's with a rushed long range bomber program, and then working towards the Strategic Rocket Force, which became the real, if not so accurate, threat. But as the saying goes, if you think you will miss, use more and bigger bullets.

The other issue for us, was if we enterd a war with the Soviets, it would have be a two front fight, Europe & Japan/China. We had downsized too dang much coming out of WWII, and barely managed to pull off Korea with a scrambled military re-build.

The Air Force today still has bomber delusions, and that a war can be won by air power. I fall in the combined effort camp, with an eye to the point that you can't win until the enemy thinks you did.

You were apparently willing to gamble that they would run down before they built up enough to kill us.

Evidently Reagan was willing to place the same bet. As I recall he won it.

Islam is the same. We can outlast it if it avoids doing something too stupid.

Remember we had Carter and Clinton and still beat the Soviets. Obama is a passing phase. And we have to unite as many people against him as possible. Save your petty culture wars for a few years so you can focus your energy on the big culture war. Strategy my friend. Less than two years to Nov 2012.

BTW, and I say this with all due respect, if you haven't read Strategy you are ignorant (totally) in military affairs. Could you be a geometry expert without Euclid?

That book was required reading by every member of the US Military for 5 or 10 years. Every member. From private to a four star. For all I know it still may be on the required list. And you haven't read it? Shame on you. I read it at lest once a year. Since about 1980.

You might also like the Dorsai novels which was on the required list for some ranks for a few years. Very good stuff about tactics, strategy, and grand strategy. This is a good place to start:

Dorsai Spirit: Two Classic Novels of the Dorsai: 'Dorsai!' and 'The Spirit of Dorsai'

also

Tactics of Mistake

should not be missed.

MSimon wrote:

You were apparently willing to gamble that they would run down before they built up enough to kill us.

Evidently Reagan was willing to place the same bet. As I recall he won it.

I have to disagree. Reagan had the bet placed for him. By the time he came to power, the soviets were capable of annihilating us.

MSimon wrote: Islam is the same. We can outlast it if it avoids doing something too stupid.

Hows that working out so far? They kept up with us all throughout the dark ages, and now that we've had a vastly superior technological advantage, we are willing to let them catch up to the level of capability to destroy us, which they have never had an opportunity to do before.

I'm betting that they will take a mutual sacrifice and call it a WIN!

MSimon wrote: Remember we had Carter and Clinton and still beat the Soviets. Obama is a passing phase. And we have to unite as many people against him as possible. Save your petty culture wars for a few years so you can focus your energy on the big culture war. Strategy my friend. Less than two years to Nov 2012.

I and others have noted a theme lately. It seems that calls for a truce in the culture war all seem to result in one sided truces. Liberals advancing, and Conservatives standing still. They (the Rhinos et. al ) are basically telling us to shut up while they continue quietly pushing the issues against us. It reminds me of this tactic.

MSimon wrote: BTW, and I say this with all due respect, if you haven't read Strategy you are ignorant (totally) in military affairs. Could you be a geometry expert without Euclid?

Perhaps, but someone had to write those books, and maybe i'm one of those?

MSimon wrote: That book was required reading by every member of the US Military for 5 or 10 years. Every member. From private to a four star. For all I know it still may be on the required list. And you haven't read it? Shame on you. I read it at lest once a year. Since about 1980.

You might also like the Dorsai novels which was on the required list for some ranks for a few years. Very good stuff about tactics, strategy, and grand strategy. This is a good place to start:

Dorsai Spirit: Two Classic Novels of the Dorsai: 'Dorsai!' and 'The Spirit of Dorsai'

also

Tactics of Mistake

should not be missed.

Loved the Dorsai novels. Read them years ago. "Tactics of mistake" was my favorite.

I just recently read that the Marine Corp is requiring all Marines to read "Ender's Game." By Orson Scott Card. EXCELLENT book if you haven't read it.

@Msimon:

BTW, and I say this with all due respect, if you haven't read Strategy you are ignorant (totally) in military affairs. Could you be a geometry expert without Euclid?

That book was required reading by every member of the US Military for 5 or 10 years. Every member. From private to a four star. For all I know it still may be on the required list. And you haven't read it? Shame on you. I read it at lest once a year. Since about 1980.

Are you talking about Summer's "On Strategy"? I thought that he wrote that in the 90's?
What book are you talking about?