Post by loucapitano on May 21, 2011 13:14:30 GMT -5
I was thinking of not writing today, since the world is going to end.
Actually, the book I'm reading now, 15 Minutes: Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command, is a much better study of the "End of the World" via nuclear annihilation. It's hard to believe I hid under my desk when my third grade teacher tought us to "Take Cover." And "don't look at the fireball" was a warning we were told to take seriously. Then around 1959 or 60 we heard a rumor that a psychic from 1855 who had predicted all the future wars predicted World War III was going to start in October. Maybe he forsaw the Cuba Missile Crisis.
What I'm getting at is that during the first 30 years of the Cold War, the world lived with the knowledge that the nuclear trigger could be pulled at any time and literally destroy humanity. It was a time when the military/civilian partnership had to work like never before because the slightest miscalculation, the smallest military action could escalate into what politicians liked to call a "nuclear exchange." i.e. you attack us 2000+ nuclear warheads and we'll send the same or more back to you. We have testimony that even as early as 1953, Soviet military planners knew neither country could remain viable after a nuclear war. We armed and armed until mutual assured distruction (MAD) was created. Yet some generals (like LeMay) still thought we could win against the USSR with a pre-emtive strike. (Go get 'em Dr. Strangelove!)
So well I remember the motto of SAC, "Peace is Our Profession." But, in spite of some terrific folk and rock songs, we never had peace. Countries still found ways to raise armies and engage in smaller but virtually endless wars that cost fewer lives and drained less national treasure to reach their political ends. I think we've reached the realization that the only way to win a war in today's environment is to: "not fight it." Military action needs to be the last response, not the first as I hope we learned in Iraq.
Now we debate of whether pre-emtive war is the solution to Pakistan and Iran. One has nuclear weapons, the other wants them. The argument goes that we'd better get them before they get us. It appears logical, but have they thought out that "getting them" means miltary invasion and occupation? I think that's why Secretary Gates declared a president would have to have his head examined to get involved in another conflict.
Actually, the book I'm reading now, 15 Minutes: Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command, is a much better study of the "End of the World" via nuclear annihilation. It's hard to believe I hid under my desk when my third grade teacher tought us to "Take Cover." And "don't look at the fireball" was a warning we were told to take seriously. Then around 1959 or 60 we heard a rumor that a psychic from 1855 who had predicted all the future wars predicted World War III was going to start in October. Maybe he forsaw the Cuba Missile Crisis.
What I'm getting at is that during the first 30 years of the Cold War, the world lived with the knowledge that the nuclear trigger could be pulled at any time and literally destroy humanity. It was a time when the military/civilian partnership had to work like never before because the slightest miscalculation, the smallest military action could escalate into what politicians liked to call a "nuclear exchange." i.e. you attack us 2000+ nuclear warheads and we'll send the same or more back to you. We have testimony that even as early as 1953, Soviet military planners knew neither country could remain viable after a nuclear war. We armed and armed until mutual assured distruction (MAD) was created. Yet some generals (like LeMay) still thought we could win against the USSR with a pre-emtive strike. (Go get 'em Dr. Strangelove!)
So well I remember the motto of SAC, "Peace is Our Profession." But, in spite of some terrific folk and rock songs, we never had peace. Countries still found ways to raise armies and engage in smaller but virtually endless wars that cost fewer lives and drained less national treasure to reach their political ends. I think we've reached the realization that the only way to win a war in today's environment is to: "not fight it." Military action needs to be the last response, not the first as I hope we learned in Iraq.
Now we debate of whether pre-emtive war is the solution to Pakistan and Iran. One has nuclear weapons, the other wants them. The argument goes that we'd better get them before they get us. It appears logical, but have they thought out that "getting them" means miltary invasion and occupation? I think that's why Secretary Gates declared a president would have to have his head examined to get involved in another conflict.