The fact that Johnson overruled Westmoreland actually shows the power of the so-called taboo in this case.https://twitter.com/kroenig/status/1048599315193778176 …
-
-
Absolutely. My basic point though is that just because Westmoreland may have wanted to use, it doesn’t necessarily undermine either tradition of non use or taboo.
-
Was also that moment during Gulf War where SecDef requested plan for usage of tactical nukes. From ”Destiny and Power” by Jon Meacham.pic.twitter.com/rGvwbv1f5w
-
Tannenwald's book (which I highly recommend even if you don't want to believe that there's a "taboo" motivating decisions) goes over instances in many Presidential administrations where someone pushed for thinking about nuclear use in war. It was disturbingly common.
-
I think it's almost MORE interesting to talk about the administrations where it was just clearly 100% off the table. I get the sense that this is how it was seen in Clinton admin (just totally unthinkable), and guess that Obama admin probably was similar.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think one can detect non-strategic, "irrational" (we might say), "emotional," etc., arguments in LBJ, but he tended to frame his policies in strategic logic (e.g., don't want a wider war). So I can certainly see why one might read him one way or the other on this.
-
I think the stronger arguments for a taboo in LBJ admin come from some other figures (McNamara's emotional/ideological vehemence against use seems to vastly outstrip any kind of pure rationality).
-
And I think (as I mentioned elsewhere) ironically the strongest arguments for a taboo existing come from those who wish it didn't exist — they feel the need to emphasize that this OUGHT to be thinkable (because it isn't), that it OUGHT to be rational (because it isn't).
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.