A weekly commentary on war, weapons, and waste in an increasingly dangerous world
Welcome to the Armed Madhouse coffee break. As the U.S. Congress considers adding another $100 billion to the U.S. defense budget, pushing the total past $1 trillion, I am launching a weekly Coffee Break feature on the weaponry, politics, economics, and consequences of armed conflict. I owe the title to a book by Greg Palast. True to the spirit of NC, the posts will be factual, rational, and non-ideological. Like the other new Coffee Break features, this one will be guided by reader interest and feedback, so comments are encouraged.
The Bundle of Death
Let’s start with a bang and contemplate what I consider to be one of the most evil artifacts in the world, the U.S. “nuclear football.”
It is a small package, but it is loaded with mega-death. This bag travels with the President always, and it contains a nuclear launch authorization code and a set of nuclear attack plans. The plans provide the president with a set of options, ranging from selective strikes to a massive attack causing unprecedented destruction and a possible nuclear winter. The plans are classified and periodically updated in a manner that is also classified.
If the President opens the bag, selects an attack plan, and issues the authorization code, no one is legally empowered to stop the attack. The role of the Vice President is limited to confirming that the President has given the attack order. In theory, the Vice President could invoke the 25th Amendment, but this would require consultation with the cabinet and approval by Congress. It is doubtful that the military would wait for this process to be completed in a crisis. Only direct military disobedience, subject to extreme penalties, could immediately stop the presidential attack order.
How Did We Get Here?
How is it that the U.S. put the power to destroy much of mankind in the hands of one person, and more importantly, why do the citizens of this country not wish to know the contents of the attack plans? The answers are found in the dark events of the final years of WWII.
In 1939, at the start of WWII, President Roosevelt wrote to the leaders of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Poland appealing to them to refrain from bombing civilian populations. In the letter, FDR said:
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
The foreign leaders initially replied positively, but by 1945 much had changed. “Strategic bombing,” notionally directed at military and industrial targets, had evolved into area raids destroying large portions of cities.
Firestorms
In bombers named for girls, we burned
The cities we had learned about in school– Randall Jarrell
The first man-made firestorm occurred in Hamburg in 1943. A multi-day bombing campaign against Hamburg culminated in an incendiary attack on July 27 that created a thousand-foot-high tornado of fire that consumed eight square miles of the city. Over 37,00 people died. This feat was repeated in Dresden in March 1945, where an estimated 25,000 died. However, despite multiple attempts, the allied air forces were unable to regularly create firestorms when attacking German cities.
The practice of city burning was perfected in Japan by U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay. With the assistance of Captain Robert McNamara, a former accounting professor at the Harvard Business School, LeMay and McNamara determined that high-altitude bombing of Japanese cities had been ineffective, and that low-altitude incendiary bombing would wreak far more destruction. This change of tactics and the use of napalm-based cluster munitions led to a devastating bombing campaign that burned 64 Japanese cities in 1945 before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
In one night alone, an incendiary bombing attack on Tokyo killed 90-100,000 civilians and destroyed 267,000 buildings, leaving over 1 million homeless. These casualty figures are roughly the same as those for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings combined. Indeed, the total number of Japanese casualties of LeMay’s incendiary bombing campaign is estimated to be substantially greater than the casualties of the atomic bombings.
Charred remains of civilians in Tokyo 1945
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an extension of an existing campaign of indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, and far from “sickening the hearts” and “shocking the conscience” of Americans as once assumed by FDR, these attacks were celebrated as great wartime achievements. LeMay later became the head of the Strategic Air Command, and McNamara, after a stint in industry, became the Secretary of Defense in the JFK and Johnson administrations. McNamara stated in a documentary interview that he and LeMay would have been tried as war criminals had the U.S. been defeated by Japan.
Something very important had changed: the American public had become willing to burn enemy cities, and it welcomed the power and efficiency of nuclear weapons, which create a firestorm every time. What nuclear war planners in the Cold War did not foresee is that many burning cities could put so much ash into the stratosphere that global temperatures would drop for an extended period resulting in a nuclear winter that would cause crop failures, species die-offs, and worldwide famine.
The Chief Executioner
President Truman, having shrugged off the warnings of the Manhattan Project scientists regarding the epochal change to warfare that the atomic bomb would cause, soon came to realize that decisions to use this weapon could not be left in the hands of the military and established absolute presidential control over the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The problem of this narrowing of responsibility for initiating nuclear war to a single person remains with us today.
See No Evil
During the cold war, and up to the present day, U.S. attack plans have included “counter-value” strikes, the purpose of which is to destroy the entire economic potential of an enemy nation. This would entail inflicting enormous civilian casualties. I believe that the reason why the American public and their Congressional representatives have no desire to see the nuclear attack plans is that they do not wish to acknowledge consenting to committing mass murder on an historically unprecedented scale. Plausible deniability is no longer an exclusive perquisite of the political elite; it has become democratized so that every American can be sheltered by ignorance of what is in the nuclear football.
Where Are We Now?
Close brushes with nuclear calamity in past decades have not deterred ambitious and costly U.S. efforts in recent years to improve strategic weapons systems. The U.S. has been striving to maintain “full spectrum” dominance in military capability, i.e., the ability to defeat any adversary or combination of adversaries in an armed conflict. Along the way, it has discarded most of the existing arms control treaties established after the trauma of the Cuban Missile crisis.The U.S. built anti-ballistic missiles, increased the accuracy of its ICBMs, and established a Space Force to put military systems in orbit.
Russia and china have responded to the U.S. weapons initiatives with their own new programs in a revival of the arms racing that characterized the Cold War era. Politicians, military leaders, and arms makers have perverse incentives to continue this race, heedless of the increasing risk of regional or global nuclear war. The Doomsday Clock is now set at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to midnight it has been since its creation.
The reasons why we are getting closer to doomsday are:
- There are active war zones in Ukraine and the Mideast, and a potential war zone in the South China sea, any one of which could trigger escalation into a nuclear war.
- The collapse of nuclear arms control treaties has led to the deployment of destabilizing weaponry with unpredictable strategic consequences (e.g., hypersonic missiles, anti-satellite weapons, and long-range nuclear torpedoes)
- The irresponsible behavior of political leaders who demonize their adversaries, believe that military confrontation is preferable to diplomacy, and dismiss the risk of nuclear war
Russian Poseidon nuclear torpedo
The bundle of death remains with us, and so does the plausible deniability explaining the reluctance to examine its contents. The attack plans remain out of public view, and if they are executed, with horrific consequences, survivors will not take comfort in saying, “we did not know.”
In future Armed Madhouse Coffee Breaks, I will explore the devilish details and unfortunate consequences of the unrelenting quest for superior weaponry, a counter-productive endeavor that is squandering the world’s wealth and increasing the risk of the greatest calamity ever to befall mankind.
“The soul is innocent and immortal, it should never die ungodly in an armed madhouse.” — Quote by Allen Ginsberg.
Perhaps some happier news is that Trump does seem to be pursuing some sort of detente with Putin and perhaps a revival of nuclear disarmament treaties including the one that he abandoned. However being Trump nothing is certain.
And looking backwards instead of forwards one must point out that the World Wars and their nuclear climax were a direct result of the age of colonialism that preceded. Those Maxim guns were switched from killing natives to killing the cannon fodder of Europe itself as decadent aristocracies and their costume obsessed royals fought a kind of family feud over who would get to pillage the most. We must not overlook the vagaries of human folly in driving the death machines.
Thanks for the post. Look forward to the next installment with current war news coming fast and furious.
>Something very important had changed: the American public had become willing to burn enemy cities, and it welcomed the power and efficiency of nuclear weapons, which create a firestorm every time.
Well hell yea. When was the last time a US city suffered wholesale destruction? At least in Japan, Europe, and Russia there are still some people alive that survived unbelievable calamity. And pass the stories to the next generations. Maybe that gives them a little more respect for the consequences of massive bombing campaigns.
We are not protected by two Oceans anymore. Our ” leaders” must have missed the video of Mr. Oreshnik introducing himself to Ukraine. How is that stopped pray tell DoD?
I don’t think we can have any “Oh Shit, maybe that was a mistake to launch a few ICBMs. Maybe the elite politicians and generals have a bunker to hide in but what are they going to rule over when they finally emerge? The disconnect from anything near reality in all the war talk and belligerence towards Russia and China is something to behold.
Great post, as much as it p***es me off I look forward to your weekly writings.
US death toll in WW2 was roughly 300k so sacrifices were being made if not the loss of whole cities. As his excuse for dropping the bomb Truman said he couldn’t justify withholding it if it would mean more Americans would die. In books like Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb it’s suggested that there was never any real possibility that the thing, once made, would not be used even if the bomb scientists tried to soothe their consciences by urging otherwise. In Oppenheimer the film we are urged to feel sorry for the protagonist but then as part maker of this terrible thing why should we? Hubris precedes nemesis.
You didn’t make clear in your first sentence if the death toll from the bombings were the US homeland cities or those in colonial/territorial locations. Or were these 300k the US military casualties?
Thought that was clear from the context. 300k US combat deaths. This may seem low compared to other countries but then much of the US public was reluctant to become involved at all and might not have if not for Pearl Harbor which was seen as “they started it” and fueled by not a little yellow peril style prejudice.
If I am not mistaken, a motivating factor in the Manhattan Project was the belief that Germany was also developing an atomic bomb. I don’t think anyone thought that Japan was capable of developing such a weapon.
I think Haig makes a compelling argument — often made less well — that Japan was already on the brink of surrender because of the air war of LeMay and MacNamara. (I hadn’t previously known the depths of this man’s depravity; it is one thing to stoop to evil in the heat of war; it is quite another to repeat the crime under less urgent circumstances.)
In my reading of history, Truman dropped the bomb more to threaten Stalin than to end the war. How did the American public, like MacNamara, come to justify wielding the bomb against its staunchest ally against Hitler? I can name names from the chronology of history, but for me, this points back, past Truman, to the original sin of Anglo-American social Darwinism.
Thank you, Haig.
I would like to complete this good overview by mentioning the often forgotten member of the trio of large, firestorm inducing WWII raids against German cities: Pforzheim, in February 1945. 17’600 people died and the city (a significant industrial centre) was largely razed to the ground.
IIRC, the decision to bomb civilians came after the realization that both Germany and Japan turned out to be good at rebuilding/repairing factory buildings and that a lot of machinery survived the bombing intact or repairable.
The workers on the other hand were much harder to replace and so they became the target.
The fire-bombing of Tokyo on March 9th 1945 was the deadliest air raid of the war, killing an estimated 100,000 people.
My principle source is James Carrol’s House of War
James’ father was the first officer to be head of security for the Air Force. He proved to Curtis LeMay that his promise/guarantee to the president, to have planes in the air within 15 minutes of being given the order, was a lot of hot air. He accomplished this by infiltrating the airbase in Hawaii with a small band of men in rubber boats, who painted “DISABLED” in large black letters on the sides of LeMay’s beloved, and supposedly guaranteed B52s.
BTW, that fire-bombing of Tokyo was planned by Robert McNamara of Viet Nam fame.
Bracing. Not sure I’d say thank you but welcome – looking forward to more of this.
I’m glad/not glad with you addressing this topic. I’m old enough to have done duck & cover, and had neighbors who built a fallout shelter in their back yard.
“So there’s been a nuclear attack. Don’t ask me how or why. Just know that the big one has hit.…
1. Go inside
2. Stay inside
3. Stay tuned
…You got this.”
-New York City Emergency Management Agency, July 2022
“Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.”
– Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson, Dr. Strangelove
Bet you never thought reality would end up reaching a point crazier than that portrayed in that movie?
I can’t find a source, and it might be apocryphal anyway, but I recall reading an interview with an American negotiator who was in talks with Chinese officials regarding nuclear war. He said that one of his counterparts said to him, “If we ever had a nuclear exchange with you, we figure we can lose 100 or 200 million civilians and be just fine. What’s your figure?” Then he smiled….
I’m not sure what your point is. In every nuclear weapon state I know of, final authority to use nuclear weapons lies with the elected Head of State or Government. In France and Russia it’s the President, in Britain it’s the Prime Minister. In China it’s no doubt Mr Xi. What other arrangements would you propose? Why should anyone be empowered to overrule a Head of State or Government on such an issue? Who would it be? How? A vote in Parliament? A telephone opinion poll? A Judge? Most people see the reduction of the military influence on nuclear weapon use and the establishment of political primacy as a good thing.Do you want to go back to the days of military control? In any democratic political system, one person, at the top, is responsible for taking the most difficult decisions in every area. (Nuclear capabilities and nuclear targeting plans are of course among the most closely guarded secrets of any of the nuclear powers.)
Incidentally, the development and use of aerial bombing is one of the most studied episodes of the war years. I’d recommend Richard Overy’s The Bombing War as a good introduction. As is well known, the origins of strategic bombing were in the belief that in a few days it would cause social and economic collapse and the war would be over without a repetition of the terrible slaughter of the First World War.
“I’m not sure what your point is. In every nuclear weapon state I know of, final authority to use nuclear weapons lies with the elected Head of State or Government”
Given the context of thinking about our present crop of mad-hatter heads of state, I’d say his point is pretty clear.
Good history, but I disagree strongly with the statements that American don’t want to know or take responsibility for the plans in the briefcase. Many anti-war activists have worked hard to reduce the odds of nuclear war, including by seeking publication of nuclear war plans. The government treats them brutally.
This is a problem in every nuclear state. Every government I’ve investigated has tested their nukes on their own soldiers, including the US, USSR, Britain, and France. Every government has poisoned their own citizens with its testing too, and taken no accountability. Every government takes care not to let electoral politics play any meaningful role in nuclear areas. This is simply what it means to have rulers – unaccountable decision-makers who punish anyone who tries to interrupt their most sensitive plans. Pretending that Americans don’t want to take responsibility for the briefcase ignores the fact that we’re actually not allowed to take responsibility – anyone who tries to find out those plans, or interrupt them somehow, is severely punished, just like in any nuclear state.
This is just normal in unhealthy cultures where a few people rule over everyone else – the cultural disease that leads to so many other problems. We can’t really meaningfully address nuclear concerns, or any other political concerns, until we address the problem that we have unaccountable leaders who punish those who stand up for what’s right and threaten their plans – the cultural cure that would let us solve so many problems.