8 ms·

> He was convinced that the Soviet Union posed an existential danger to the security of the United States and advocated not just a preemptive but a preventive s

by davidw 5y ago

> He was convinced that the Soviet Union posed an existential danger to the security of the United States and advocated not just a preemptive but a preventive strike on that country; thankfully that part of his advice was not taken. Yikes! I'm reading a biography of Eisenhower, and it's remarkable what a 'steady hand' he was in some ways in terms of hot-headed notions like those. Also very much in favor of curtailing defense spending to what was strictly necessary. He had some misses, too, but I found it interesting to contemplate.

philwelch 5y ago
Von Neumann once said of the Soviets: “If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o' clock, I say why not one o' clock?”
- Koshkin 5y ago
  This almost sounds like sarcasm.
  - SquishyPanda23 5y ago
    He also described himself as "violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm". In that context it doesn't sound as sarcastic.
    - thedailymail 5y ago
      Von Neumann's nuclear bellicosity is interesting to compare to Norbert Wiener's post-Hiroshima pacifism. Wiener was no fan of communism, but he seemed to suspect global thermonuclear war would not turn out well. Von Neumann apparently thought such a conflict could be won unilaterally.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nickff 5y ago
To be fair to Von Neumann, you’re displaying hindsight bias. It is possible that with the knowledge they had at the time, a preventative or pre-emptive attack would have been rational, maybe even with the best ‘expected outcome’.
- GDC7 5y ago
  How is that possible? Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off. You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were before. Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam.
  - qersist3nce 5y ago
    > Also the entire world would have reacted Hard no. No one "reacted" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were glassed.
    - GDC7 5y ago
      In fact they reacted before. With spies inside Project Manhattan. Both the UK and USSR reacted with what they could, meaning their intelligence and espionage. It's kind of a selection bias considering that the only country capable of building the Atomic Bomb was the US.
      - radicalbyte 5y ago
        The UK provided key expertise to the Manhattan Project, so to say that they were "spying" is not fair. The UK bomb project had been going on for longer, and making it a joint US/UK project sped up development.
        aerostable_slug 5y ago
        Members of the UK delegation were spies for the Soviets, and other members looked as hard as they could to find advantage for their own country. I certainly do not look askance upon the latter, and would have done the same. I don't think anyone doubts the contributions our British friends made to the success of the project.
qersist3nce 5y ago
Yeah, these are the parts conveniently ignored in almost all documentaries on this subject. There was also a legal dispute between Eckert-Mauchly and von Neumann about precedence of invention of early computer architectures. Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green lit dropping of the bombs on general population, otherwise who could have known what kinds of justifications the japs academics would have come up with to wash out the atrocities of their imperial administration? As always, history is written by the winners. [Edit]: Confused Eisenhower with Truman
- caned 5y ago
  > Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green lit dropping of the bombs on general population "... in formulating policies regarding the atomic bomb and relations with the Soviets, Truman was guided by the U.S. State Department and ignored Eisenhower and the Pentagon. Indeed, Eisenhower had opposed the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese, writing, 'First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
  - qersist3nce 5y ago
    Sorry, I confused Truman with Eisenhower. Still, I have a feeling I can find similar views even from him: > In 1953, he considered using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War, and may have threatened China with nuclear attack if an armistice was not reached quickly. > He supported regime-changing military coups in Iran and Guatemala orchestrated by his own administration > He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, which was left to John F. Kennedy to carry out.
    - davidw 5y ago
      The biography was interesting. Other big misses were essentially keeping in place the health care system we have today, and not being much of a leader on civil rights issues.
Koshkin 5y ago
Well, he did get himself a crater (on the far side of the Moon, mind you) named after him.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  Better than getting a crater in Moscow named after you.
  - aerostable_slug 5y ago
    Better? Kidding aside, I read an account by a B-52 bombardier whose plane on SIOP alert carried two B53 high yield bombs (one usually got a four-pack of B28 bombs and one B53). His target brief went something like "when you get there (Moscow-locale leadership bunkers) you'll see a crater; put your bombs in it."
    - salawat 5y ago
      There is something to be said for simplicity in the application of nuclear warheads. though that does make one wonder.... All at once? I imagine no amount of fancy timing would necessarily get both going off successfully before one or the other's shockwave disassembled the later blowing partner. Or I'm just grossly misunderstanding the timescales at play. that's happened more than once too.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        I have seen footage of a B-52 laying down two B83 training shapes near-simultaneously on the same target, so I've got no doubt the scenario happens. I don't know how the fuzing worked in those situations. Perhaps one weapon senses the gamma ray burst or other emission from its companion and a form of salvage fuze detonates it. As an aside, I've wondered what I would do if I were a Soviet guard at an ICBM site or the like and a bomb was laid down nearby. It's going to sit there ticking for a little while to ensure the bomber escapes the blast radius, so you'd have a bit of time to think things over. I think I'd probably shoot the bomb in hopes of disrupting the detonation process, but I suppose just sitting on it and having a swig of vodka would be an attractive second choice.
generationP 5y ago
This was probably back in Stalin's days, where an attack by the Soviet Union on the West was reasonably viewed as a matter of time. The whole idea of separate spheres of influence and mutual deterrents wouldn't become believable until Khrushtchov.
- cbHXBY1D 5y ago
  Citation needed for "reasonably viewed". For example, Stalin said this to Mao in 1949: "In China a war for peace, as it were, is taking place. The question of peace greatly preoccupies the Soviet Union as well, though we have already had peace for the past four years. With regards to China, there is no immediate threat at the present time: Japan has yet to stand up on its feet and is thus not ready for war; America, though it screams war, is actually afraid of war more than anything; Europe is afraid of war; in essence, there is no one to fight with China, not unless Kim Il Sung decides to invade China? Peace will depend on our efforts. If we continue to be friendly, peace can last not only 5-10 years, but 20-25 years and perhaps even longer." https://china.usc.edu/conversation-between-soviet-unions-joseph-stalin-and-chinas-mao-zedong-1949 https://china.usc.edu/conversation-between-soviet-unions-jos...
  - generationP 5y ago
    I'm sure he sounded equally peaceful back in 1939 when dividing up Poland with Hitler while building tanks for streamrolling Europe.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    The next year Mao, with Stalin's support, attacked the allies in Korea.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
It would be hard to sell the attack on the USSR to the american public, after years building them as good allies in their fight against Hitler. Such things take 2-3 years of concentrated efforts by state propaganda. Even in USSR it was a problem to explain why our trustworthy allies have suddenly became evil and took a couple of years.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  I don’t think you lived through the Cold War in America to make a comment like that. I did.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    You never lived through a period of warm relations during ww2. It didn't change to hatred overnight. As for the Cold War period which I, too, lived through on the other side, in both sides the level of hostility was achieved after very concentrated efforts by both governments.
CrazyStat 5y ago
>I'm reading a biography of Eisenhower Which one, out of curiosity? I like reading/listening to biographies, so I'm always interested in good recommendations.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
His family got out of Hungary in 1919, to escape the Hungarian Soviet Republic of Bela Kun. The communist government nationalised estates and started a policy they themselves called the red terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Hungary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Hungary) see: https://medium.com/young-spurs/the-unsung-genius-of-john-von-neumann-5abec91a6359 https://medium.com/young-spurs/the-unsung-genius-of-john-von... "This experience marked a formative period in von Neumann’s political views, as his passionate anti-Communism was forged, an animus which he would carry for the rest of his life."

by davidw 5y ago

philwelch 5y ago

Von Neumann once said of the Soviets: “If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o' clock, I say why not one o' clock?”

Koshkin 5y ago
This almost sounds like sarcasm.
- SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  He also described himself as "violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm". In that context it doesn't sound as sarcastic.
  - thedailymail 5y ago
    Von Neumann's nuclear bellicosity is interesting to compare to Norbert Wiener's post-Hiroshima pacifism. Wiener was no fan of communism, but he seemed to suspect global thermonuclear war would not turn out well. Von Neumann apparently thought such a conflict could be won unilaterally.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nickff 5y ago

To be fair to Von Neumann, you’re displaying hindsight bias. It is possible that with the knowledge they had at the time, a preventative or pre-emptive attack would have been rational, maybe even with the best ‘expected outcome’.

GDC7 5y ago
How is that possible? Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike the US would have been worse off. You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were before. Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam.
- qersist3nce 5y ago
  > Also the entire world would have reacted Hard no. No one "reacted" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were glassed.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    In fact they reacted before. With spies inside Project Manhattan. Both the UK and USSR reacted with what they could, meaning their intelligence and espionage. It's kind of a selection bias considering that the only country capable of building the Atomic Bomb was the US.
    - radicalbyte 5y ago
      The UK provided key expertise to the Manhattan Project, so to say that they were "spying" is not fair. The UK bomb project had been going on for longer, and making it a joint US/UK project sped up development.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        Members of the UK delegation were spies for the Soviets, and other members looked as hard as they could to find advantage for their own country. I certainly do not look askance upon the latter, and would have done the same. I don't think anyone doubts the contributions our British friends made to the success of the project.

qersist3nce 5y ago

Yeah, these are the parts conveniently ignored in almost all documentaries on this subject. There was also a legal dispute between Eckert-Mauchly and von Neumann about precedence of invention of early computer architectures. Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green lit dropping of the bombs on general population, otherwise who could have known what kinds of justifications the japs academics would have come up with to wash out the atrocities of their imperial administration? As always, history is written by the winners. [Edit]: Confused Eisenhower with Truman

caned 5y ago
> Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green lit dropping of the bombs on general population "... in formulating policies regarding the atomic bomb and relations with the Soviets, Truman was guided by the U.S. State Department and ignored Eisenhower and the Pentagon. Indeed, Eisenhower had opposed the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese, writing, 'First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
- qersist3nce 5y ago
  Sorry, I confused Truman with Eisenhower. Still, I have a feeling I can find similar views even from him: > In 1953, he considered using nuclear weapons to end the Korean War, and may have threatened China with nuclear attack if an armistice was not reached quickly. > He supported regime-changing military coups in Iran and Guatemala orchestrated by his own administration > He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, which was left to John F. Kennedy to carry out.
  - davidw 5y ago
    The biography was interesting. Other big misses were essentially keeping in place the health care system we have today, and not being much of a leader on civil rights issues.

Koshkin 5y ago

Well, he did get himself a crater (on the far side of the Moon, mind you) named after him.

DonHopkins 5y ago
Better than getting a crater in Moscow named after you.
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  Better? Kidding aside, I read an account by a B-52 bombardier whose plane on SIOP alert carried two B53 high yield bombs (one usually got a four-pack of B28 bombs and one B53). His target brief went something like "when you get there (Moscow-locale leadership bunkers) you'll see a crater; put your bombs in it."
  - salawat 5y ago
    There is something to be said for simplicity in the application of nuclear warheads. though that does make one wonder.... All at once? I imagine no amount of fancy timing would necessarily get both going off successfully before one or the other's shockwave disassembled the later blowing partner. Or I'm just grossly misunderstanding the timescales at play. that's happened more than once too.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      I have seen footage of a B-52 laying down two B83 training shapes near-simultaneously on the same target, so I've got no doubt the scenario happens. I don't know how the fuzing worked in those situations. Perhaps one weapon senses the gamma ray burst or other emission from its companion and a form of salvage fuze detonates it. As an aside, I've wondered what I would do if I were a Soviet guard at an ICBM site or the like and a bomb was laid down nearby. It's going to sit there ticking for a little while to ensure the bomber escapes the blast radius, so you'd have a bit of time to think things over. I think I'd probably shoot the bomb in hopes of disrupting the detonation process, but I suppose just sitting on it and having a swig of vodka would be an attractive second choice.

generationP 5y ago

This was probably back in Stalin's days, where an attack by the Soviet Union on the West was reasonably viewed as a matter of time. The whole idea of separate spheres of influence and mutual deterrents wouldn't become believable until Khrushtchov.

cbHXBY1D 5y ago
Citation needed for "reasonably viewed". For example, Stalin said this to Mao in 1949: "In China a war for peace, as it were, is taking place. The question of peace greatly preoccupies the Soviet Union as well, though we have already had peace for the past four years. With regards to China, there is no immediate threat at the present time: Japan has yet to stand up on its feet and is thus not ready for war; America, though it screams war, is actually afraid of war more than anything; Europe is afraid of war; in essence, there is no one to fight with China, not unless Kim Il Sung decides to invade China? Peace will depend on our efforts. If we continue to be friendly, peace can last not only 5-10 years, but 20-25 years and perhaps even longer." https://china.usc.edu/conversation-between-soviet-unions-joseph-stalin-and-chinas-mao-zedong-1949 https://china.usc.edu/conversation-between-soviet-unions-jos...
- generationP 5y ago
  I'm sure he sounded equally peaceful back in 1939 when dividing up Poland with Hitler while building tanks for streamrolling Europe.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  The next year Mao, with Stalin's support, attacked the allies in Korea.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

It would be hard to sell the attack on the USSR to the american public, after years building them as good allies in their fight against Hitler. Such things take 2-3 years of concentrated efforts by state propaganda. Even in USSR it was a problem to explain why our trustworthy allies have suddenly became evil and took a couple of years.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
I don’t think you lived through the Cold War in America to make a comment like that. I did.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  You never lived through a period of warm relations during ww2. It didn't change to hatred overnight. As for the Cold War period which I, too, lived through on the other side, in both sides the level of hostility was achieved after very concentrated efforts by both governments.

CrazyStat 5y ago

>I'm reading a biography of Eisenhower Which one, out of curiosity? I like reading/listening to biographies, so I'm always interested in good recommendations.

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

His family got out of Hungary in 1919, to escape the Hungarian Soviet Republic of Bela Kun. The communist government nationalised estates and started a policy they themselves called the red terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Hungary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Hungary) see: https://medium.com/young-spurs/the-unsung-genius-of-john-von-neumann-5abec91a6359 https://medium.com/young-spurs/the-unsung-genius-of-john-von... "This experience marked a formative period in von Neumann’s political views, as his passionate anti-Communism was forged, an animus which he would carry for the rest of his life."