New evidence against the idea of a "nuclear taboo." Newly declassified documents show that Gen Westmoreland considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/asia/vietnam-war-nuclear-weapons.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage …
-
Not sure I see how this goes against the idea of a taboo? Tannenwald has an entire chapter on Vietnam. She doesn't claim that all parties shared in taboo; it is a constructed and contested thing, she says.
I mean, the new details are nice, but they don't in any way contradict her writing on the internal pressures for use and non-use in Vietnam. Military and JCS pushed for possible tactical use; LBJ and RSN pushed back hard for a few reasons.
-
-
One can argue whether LBJ's response (fear of escalation) is related to taboo or just realpolitik; and one can similarly argue whether RSM's approach was taboo-ish or not (I think the taboo argument is stronger there than LBJ). But that's not new.
-
(I think the strongest evidence that Tannenwald has about a "taboo" existing comes from those who were at times pushing for nuclear use — their arguments were about the need to eliminate the "taboo," to make these things "thinkable." Why need to do that, if there is no taboo?)
-
Someone like Robert S. McNamara (to clarify my "RSM") similarly provides a lot of evidence for a "taboo"— his objections to use seem to go well beyond strict deterrence concerns. One gets the sense that there was a deep emotional, ideological core to his ideas re: non-use.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.