And we with hindsight know that the soviets never striked at the west - there is nothing to preempt. You would see most of the world burn for nothing.
Curtis LeMay as president, what would it look like?
- Thread starter smiffsmiffwild
- Start date
- Status
No. For one his ego wouldn’t allow him to be vp. Second, assuming he dies at same time he died in 64 so not an option unless he is in the 1960 race but again, see point 1.
Any talk of the US winning WW3 in or after 1968 is delusional. By then, the Soviets had built up the strategic rocket forces to around a thousand ICBMs* and emplaced many of them in hardened silos. The Soviet retaliation to the American first-strike would have effectively eradicated American society as assuredly as the US would have the Soviets.
*To be precise, by the end of 1968 the Soviets had loaded and active launchers for 196 R-16s, 26 R-9s, 163 R-36 vanillas, and 6 R-36-0, and 770 UR-100s. There were also a trio of Yankee-class missile submarines, though those wouldn’t be on regular patrols off the American seaboard until another 11 were added to the fleet in 1968-1970.
*To be precise, by the end of 1968 the Soviets had loaded and active launchers for 196 R-16s, 26 R-9s, 163 R-36 vanillas, and 6 R-36-0, and 770 UR-100s. There were also a trio of Yankee-class missile submarines, though those wouldn’t be on regular patrols off the American seaboard until another 11 were added to the fleet in 1968-1970.
Last edited:
Indeed yes. A first strike in October 1962 would have seen the USA survive with “relatively little” damage (“only“ 5-20m dead) while the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were ruined with cities, large towns and a lot of infrastructure all destroyed. And 150m or so (more?) dead. Western Europe somewhere between devastated like the East and ”just” WW2 levels of damage to buildings etc. but far more deaths.
Great for the USA (?)
1969 and later would be very different. Same results for most of Eurasia as the USSR in 1962 with probably strikes on China, Australia and others too.
The USA? Very badly damaged, far beyond the 1962 outcome. Especially if fearing a US first strike made the Soviets hit first.
Not worth it IMHO and I suspect LeMay would see the difference.
Most WWII general were and for the same reason. Unlike the "Deep South" where "Separate but Equal" was only words the military had to actually deal with trying to keep two "Separate but Equal" forces and that was far to expensive to maintain.
I also don't think LeMay was as big a Warhawk as he's made out to be. Yes, he would often recommend the "nuclear option" for the specific reason it was too horrible to contemplate. Politicians tend to need to be reminded of the cold facts and there's nothing like someone recommending the 'ultimate' solution to calm people down. He'd likely treat the Vietnam was AS an actual "war" and try and get a lot of the "Rules of Engagement" streamlined if not outright dropped. He'd likely push to take the war to North Vietnam more proactively, though he'd be as aware over the issues with China (aka another intervention like Korea) as anyone else, I wonder if he might play into the issues between China and North Vietnam. (There's a reason most of the material support was from Russia and NOT China. China was actually laying claim to all of Vietnam before the war started and took it up again after the war was over)
Randy
FYI, here is what LeMay thought of Mac. Quote is verbatim.
“I’ll pick out some people who were supposed to have been good leaders. Let’s take MacArthur. I wouldn’t follow that man out to the outhouse because I don’t like him. I don't like his methods..."
Too egoistic for accepting being VP. And he would be over 80 years old. Not any sense pick such old man as VP.
To elaborate on the excellent post by @ObssesedNuker , the Soviet nuclear arsenal at end-1968 also included around 700 IRBM and MRBM capable of attacking targets in western Europe, probably the Middle East, Japan and China. Also around 150 long range bombers and 750 medium range ones.
In addition to the SSBNs he alluded to, the Soviet Navy had 18 SSNs and 35 SSKs that carried short range ballistic missiles and 47 submarines (25 nuclear powered) with anti-shipping cruise missiles, probably with nuclear warheads.
Source - Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, published September 1969.
In addition to the SSBNs he alluded to, the Soviet Navy had 18 SSNs and 35 SSKs that carried short range ballistic missiles and 47 submarines (25 nuclear powered) with anti-shipping cruise missiles, probably with nuclear warheads.
Source - Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, published September 1969.
Not Newt Gingrich
Banned
That's the beauty of World War 5. It skips over World War 3 and 4 all together.
Nuclear war CAN be won if it happens at the right time frame. Yes it will hurt but WW2 and WW1 hurt as well,
The after affects of a relatively small Nuclear war such as pre 1960 will not be all that much worse then the after affects of WW2.
Yes it would. suck fir whomever got hit.
Eventually the size and number mean that the majority of the population of the planet is screwed and advanced tech is hostory as the food supply chain and manufacturing chain are broken in so many links that they don't exist anymore. But most modern experts seam to think that the nuclear winter and massive radiation clouds are both over blown.
Don't get me wrong any nuclear war is horrible, But a Nuclear aar early on will not be much worse then WW1/WW2 level of distruction, it will just be a lot shorter. And later wars would be worse.
1969 will be ugly.
But i do think that a lot of folks today have a very distorted/bad view of those that Fought WW1 and WW2 as those wars were not (and could not be) fought the way say Desert Storm was fought.
The after affects of a relatively small Nuclear war such as pre 1960 will not be all that much worse then the after affects of WW2.
Yes it would. suck fir whomever got hit.
Eventually the size and number mean that the majority of the population of the planet is screwed and advanced tech is hostory as the food supply chain and manufacturing chain are broken in so many links that they don't exist anymore. But most modern experts seam to think that the nuclear winter and massive radiation clouds are both over blown.
Don't get me wrong any nuclear war is horrible, But a Nuclear aar early on will not be much worse then WW1/WW2 level of distruction, it will just be a lot shorter. And later wars would be worse.
1969 will be ugly.
But i do think that a lot of folks today have a very distorted/bad view of those that Fought WW1 and WW2 as those wars were not (and could not be) fought the way say Desert Storm was fought.
Thank you, someone who’s finally Someone who’s not talking like the guys a wild maniac. You cannot become an officer on the level of Curtis LeMay, and be insane at that level.
I agree with your points about him. Probably built up the US Air Force more could have some pretty interesting results. This might even butterfly McNamara.
Something to note, the president does not have the authority to declare war.
Deterrence requires a degree of grandstanding, of theatrics and yes, of menace. JFK certainly wielded that menace to great effect during the Cuban Missile Crisis and it must surely have contributed to Khrushchev's blinking. So the subsequent narrative of JFK's dove restraining LeMay's hawk strikes as a little hollow. How do we know there wasn't a degree of theatre at play post-facto? "Er....now look, Nikita. I ...err barely held him back last time, so don't ..er... pull that again."
LeMay was known to be an opponent of the LBJ administration. I do wonder how much of LeMay's reputation post-1965 is down to Johnson and McNamara salting the earth so to speak?
I don't doubt for a second that LeMay was something of a hawk. You can't be a combat pilot without fangs. As for the reputation history has ascribed to him, notably post-Cold War, how much of it is known for a fact? I wouldn't consider all of his would-be biographers to necessarily be reliable.
He was obviously a strong advocate of airpower. Since his career spanned the SS Rex to the XB-70, he must have known something about it too!
LeMay was known to be an opponent of the LBJ administration. I do wonder how much of LeMay's reputation post-1965 is down to Johnson and McNamara salting the earth so to speak?
I don't doubt for a second that LeMay was something of a hawk. You can't be a combat pilot without fangs. As for the reputation history has ascribed to him, notably post-Cold War, how much of it is known for a fact? I wouldn't consider all of his would-be biographers to necessarily be reliable.
He was obviously a strong advocate of airpower. Since his career spanned the SS Rex to the XB-70, he must have known something about it too!
Last edited:
"Oh, Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed; but I do say no more than 10 to 20 million killed..... uhhh. depending on the breaks!"
Considering all the talk of what his military and foreign policy would be, what would be interesting to discuss would be the question of what LeMay's economic and social policies (or his domestic policies, so to speak) been like had he become President, assuming of course his Presidency doesn't end in nuclear flames.
Although LeMay pushed for desegregation in the military, he stated in interviews that the Federal government should not be "forcing it down people's throats" and that it should be left up to individual states.
Note that not wanting the Feds to force desegregation does not automat make him a racist. A lot of folks today and even more back then were firm backers of separation of powers. And while it is one thing to have the Supreme Court rule something is illegal it is another thing to pass a Federal Law that may or may not violate states rights.
We younger folks tend yo have a much greater acceptance of the Federal Government sticking its nose into what is often viewed as State or local buisness.
The fact that he want Federal organizations such as the military to desegregate is perhaps an indication that he was not in favor of segregation, but that he simply did think it was an area that the Federal Government was supposed to be involved in,
This may indicate that he would have not pushed all the federal programs and the expansion of Federal powers over State and local things that we got in the 60s and 70s. When the Federal Government massively increased n size and scope. So he may very well have cut a lot of domestic programs that JFK/LBJ advanced.
We younger folks tend yo have a much greater acceptance of the Federal Government sticking its nose into what is often viewed as State or local buisness.
The fact that he want Federal organizations such as the military to desegregate is perhaps an indication that he was not in favor of segregation, but that he simply did think it was an area that the Federal Government was supposed to be involved in,
This may indicate that he would have not pushed all the federal programs and the expansion of Federal powers over State and local things that we got in the 60s and 70s. When the Federal Government massively increased n size and scope. So he may very well have cut a lot of domestic programs that JFK/LBJ advanced.
When he was on the campaign trail in '68, LeMay was extraordinarily tight lipped about any domestic policies he might implement if he made it to the corridors of power. Which makes his hypothetical homefront performance anybody's guess, really.
What is worth nothing, however, is that he threw his support behind George Wallace, who was a notorious segregationalist - an odd decision for someone who was in favour of a desegregated military and makes me think that Doug here has the right idea.
- Status