The fact that Johnson overruled Westmoreland actually shows the power of the so-called taboo in this case.https://twitter.com/kroenig/status/1048599315193778176 …
-
-
Replying to @NarangVipin
I mean, the argument I think that would be made is, did LBJ overrule because he felt some strong, not-purely-strategic reason that nukes shouldn't be used? Or was it pure strategy? The non-tabooers usually try to make latter argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
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).
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.