Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dave

Robert McNamara has died

Recommended Posts

Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara has died, Washington Post reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condolences to his family. How I feel about his decision making is another matter.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Condolences to his family. How I feel about his decision making is another matter.

 

FC

Ditto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Condolences to his family. How I feel about his decision making is another matter.

 

FC

 

Yep 100% agree, I have been refraining from posting my thoughts on his leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Condolences to his family. How I feel about his decision making is another matter.

 

FC

 

Recently i saw a bio-documentary on him. And i couldn´t tell you, i didn´t know how to judge him and the way he acted, it´s kind

of i couldn´t tell if he had been good or bad for the US and the world, but he neither seemed sure about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58,159 dead

2,000 missing

303,635 wouned

 

All becuase of this moron, and to achieve nothing. I sincerely hope he does not rest in peace. He was a blight on the 20th century and his death should be celebrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,159 dead

2,000 missing

303,635 wouned

 

All becuase of this moron, and to achieve nothing. I sincerely hope he does not rest in peace. He was a blight on the 20th century and his death should be celebrated.

 

That sums it up for me. Statistics do not win a war. People win wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,159 dead

2,000 missing

303,635 wouned

 

All becuase of this moron, and to achieve nothing. I sincerely hope he does not rest in peace. He was a blight on the 20th century and his death should be celebrated.

Thank god I'm not the only one pissed off about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58,159 dead

2,000 missing

303,635 wouned

 

All becuase of this moron, and to achieve nothing. I sincerely hope he does not rest in peace. He was a blight on the 20th century and his death should be celebrated.

 

Guess if right should be right. He wasnt the only one to blame for this..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that despite much wrong he did, he tried to make it well. Being neither northamerican nor vietnamese, i don´t have the right to complain,

i guess that you will be better aware of what he did, and have the right to judge him, but i just think that it shouldn´t be blamed for how did vietnam go -alone.

Edited by macelena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conccur with macelena but...not judging him...the numbers speaks by itself what happened there if it was right or not....the fact is...USA get in Soviet/Chinese influence area and the tragedy happened, it wasn't only his guilty anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well facts prove themselves as C5 posted above. U cant be a politician and micro manage a war, and fight with one hand tied behind ur backs. He went as far as to send double the amout of airplanes with HALF the bombloads, to generate MORE sorties, there by putting twice the amout of aircrews in jeopardy. And dont get me started on the F-111B that he tried to shove down the Navys throat. Not to mention he ordered the stand down of aggression in the north and they rebuilt and reloaded then reordered more strikes on the SAME targets. And not to mention decided what we could and couldnt bomb, a crapload of restrictions. WTF, either fight completely or dont fight AT ALL. That simple.

 

 

RANT MODE OFF

Edited by Jarhead1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As early as 1966, Johnson and McNamara were advised that the key to swiftly ending the war, was to mine North Vietnam's harbors. Both objected, on the grounds that it might further escalate the conflict (please keep in mind that McNamara had at one point, advocated using a nuclear weapon on North Vietnam!).

 

Immediately after the Tet offensive of 1968, the Vietcong were essentially wiped out, and the NVA was in tatters. The momentum was there, as was the opportunity. Both the mining of Hai Phong harbor, and the escalation of the bombing campaign at that time, would have prevented the North from resupplying the VC, and would have further depleted their AAA and SAM supplies. Military historians agree that such a move would have forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table. Again, Johnson and McNamara refused.

 

In all fairness, it took the Nixon administration over two years to finally take the same advice (though he delayed the bombing campaign until December of 1972).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch Fog of War. He even admits he f***ed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watch Fog of War. He even admits he f***ed up.

 

Admitting you f***ed up 30+ years after the fact reminds me of someone apologizing for picking on the fat kid in school, it only makes that person feel good not the fat kid or in this case 58,000+ families and untold Viet Nam Vets.

 

I wonder if he and his "wiz kids" slept well after ignoring all the suggested changes to the M-16, what a difference a little chrome made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good riddance to a liar and cheat.

 

The Eisenhower Administration's last budget -- it's proposed FY62 budget -- had money for seven DLGNs.

 

When McNamara entered office, he cancelled all seven DLGNs. But the House added the USS Truxtun, DLGN-35 against his wishes to the budget in May 1961.

 

In April 1963, the "First Navy" study was given to McNamara. It concluded that "nuclear propulsion does permit a significant increase in the beneficial military results for a given expenditure," and that CVA-67 and all other future major warships should be nuclear powered.

 

Of course, Strange took that report and shoved it into his desk and ordered another study to be done.

 

The "Second Navy" study arrived on his desk in September 1963 and was quite detailed and focused on the lifecycle cost differential between oil and nuclear powered task forces. It concluded that there was only a 3% cost differential in favor of the oil burning task force; but the advantages of a nuclear task force were so great as to outweigh the slightly increased cost.

 

Advantages? Well...in the words of the Navy in 1964:

 

"a nuclear CVAN-67 is designed to carry ammunition, aircraft fuel, and propulsion fuel for conventional escorts sufficient to deliver at least 60% more airstrikes than a conventional CVA-67 before replenishing."

 

So what does Strange do?

 

Why of course he rejects it totally, gins up some supporting data of his own from OSD, and asserts:

 

"I am absolutely certain of one thing, that the six conventional task forces are superior to five nuclear task forces."

 

He then continued to reject any further analysis of the CVA(N)-67 issue by the Navy and ordered it to be constructed as a oil-burner in a memo to SecNav Korth on October 9, 1963.

 

You may be curious as to what data he ginned up with the help of OSD and his cronies.

 

Well, for the scenario of a high speed run across the Atlantic the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (Mr. Harold Brown) assumed that the conventionally powered carrier had 100% availability and absolutely perfect positioning of underway replenishment ships, keeping the oil-burning CV only 4 hours astern of the CVN after five days.

 

Alas, Admiral Hayward, who actually did do high speed runs on both a CVN and CV, reported that during his transit of the Atlantic on a CV; that the sea was so rough that underway replenishment wasn't possible, nor could he bring his escorts alongside for refuelling from the carrier. This led to the carrier burning aviation fuel in it's boilers to make it's destination.

 

Oh by the way, you'll love his absolute gem of an idea to save money....Amusingly enough, this crazy idea didn't originate at all within the Navy -- read, with ZERO input from the navy -- but was forwarded to SecNav from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis).

 

Strange suggested that the traditional 1-1 relationship between carriers and air wings be changed, and submitted a plan where there would be 15 carriers, but only 12 air wings. He actually went on the record as stating that "significantly more useable combat power" could be obtained under this screwball idea.

 

What do we do with the extra carriers? Don't worry, he explains it below:

 

Carriers would normally deploy with less than the maximum complement of aircraft and additional aircraft would be flown to the carriers as needed. In effect, we would be treating the aircraft carrier as a forward floating air base, deploying the aircraft as the situation requires.

 

Naturally, the Navy thought the "Forward floating airbase" idea was bulls**t and didn't take much note of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only war run by accountants that can succeed is if your enemy consists also of accountants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only war run by accountants that can succeed is if your enemy consists also of accountants.

 

 

Reagan age. Your enemy must be worse accountants than yours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..