Talk:Curtis LeMay

Frank Herbert and certifibles in the Pentagon

The late author of Dune commented often on the mental stability of professional military men, especially flag officers. The over the top performance by Sterling Hayden as General Jack D. Ripper in the film "Dr. Strangelove" was obviously intended as a satire, but I'm willing to bet that there and are more than a few generals with stars on their shoulders and bats in their belfrys.

To cite only one example, in the book "Area 51 - An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base" by Annie Jacobsen, looking back on the Bay Of Pigs fiasco, LeMay said regretfully that "If we'd had a little more time we could have started World War Three". A statement of this nature is actually cause for a psychiatric 911 phone call.

It's been said that every other flag officer in the Pentagon could be fired and we would still have more than enough to run the military. Aside from all the jostling for more rank and career backstabbing, which has always been rampant, it might be a good idea to maintain extra close and detailed psychological profiles on those who have the most military authority. USAFSS60 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC) USAFSS60 11-21-16

Cuba NOT the only time nuclear authority was delegated

As of 2018-12-21 the section on the "Cuban Missile Crisis" includes the claim that, "Unknown to the US, the Soviet field commanders in Cuba had been given authority to launch nuclear weapons under their control—the only time such authority was delegated by higher command.<ref name=Rhodes575/>

I'm deleting the phrase, "the only time such authority was delegated by higher command", because it is contradicted by multiple other sources including the following:

1. The discussion in Cuban Missile Crisis#Averted nuclear launch of a soviet submarine that almost launched nuclear-tipped torpedoes the US did not think they had.
2. Daniel Ellsberg (2017) The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a nuclear war planner, in which Ellsberg says that the authority to use nuclear weapons must be delegated, because otherwise a decapitation attack could succeed in incapacitating the opponent's nuclear arsenal.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "strategic bombing" -- is a brief definition needed?

In several places the article uses the term "strategic bombing". I suggest that somewhere the term should be given a brief definition or explanation.

While the term is widely used in discussion of aerial warfare, it seems to me that the term is a euphemism, a sugar coating for a strategy encompassing large-scale attacks on cities, with major civilian casualties. The general reader of this article may not understand what is meant by the term, and hence it seems appropriate to me to give it some sort of brief, parenthetical definition somewhere in the article. CoffeeBeans9 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, the term is linked so the reader can find out more. There's a specific article on Strategic bombing in World War II which describes it as "...the sustained aerial attack on railways, harbours, cities, workers' and civilian housing, and industrial districts in enemy territory during World War II". This article itself mentions the incendiary raid on Tokyo and that the USAAF campaign "against Japan,...may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless". There is no whitewash. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Ok, so I want to see if we could get a discussion on the matter going, but it is of my opinion that we should at least nominate this article for "Good Article Status".

This is a well-formated, extremely edited, and sourced article. While I suspect the ratings of the article (list in the project above) are out of date, I think this article would regardless qualify.

Prior to a nomination, we should try to discuss it(so please do so below), but I wanted to bring this to your attention. Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 17:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

He is very well known in popular culture

BilCat says they "Removed unsourced or improperly sourced pop culture items per WP:MILPOP - "'In popular culture' sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture." It's hard to think of a better known general in popular culture. According to Fred Kaplan in the New York Times: " 'Dr. Strangelove,' Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film about nuclear-war plans run amok, is widely heralded as one of the greatest satires in American political or movie history....It was no secret -- it would have been obvious to many viewers in 1964 -- that General Ripper looked a lot like Curtis LeMay, the cigar-chomping, gruff-talking general." [Fred Kaplan, "Truth Stranger Than 'Strangelove' " The New York Times Oct. 10, 2004.] As for cites: it is a Wikipedia policy that citing the title of a novel or film is adequate--it is citing a reliable primary source about that novel or film. Furthermore an editor can make noncontroversial factual statements based on the primary source according to WP:PRIMARY @Bilcat @BilCat:, Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to read WP:IPC and WP:MILPOP, and if you have, read them again more carefully. Pop culture sections are not simply a list of every film, TV, book, or comic appearance of the person, or of similar characters that might be based on the person. Citations have to cite a reliable source for the impact an appearance had on popular culture, not merely that the person was a character in a film, book, etc. The only entry that even attempted to do that was the Dr. Strangelove, which I purposely did not remove. I'm going to remove everything else again. Please do not restore it again without a clear consensus to do so. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be a misreading of WP:PRIMARY. You can't just cite "X novel" because character Bob Smith seems like real life person John Doe. That's personal interpretation. Use the NYT article instead, since that's a secondary source which makes that connection directly. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Point of history

Implemented a controversial strategic bombing campaign in the Pacific theater of World War II.

I wish to respectfully say that it wasn't controversial during the Pacific theater of World War II. 96.55.136.16 (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Move info from Early life to Career section

Lemay joining the Air Corps Reserve in October 1929 would seem to be part of his career?

I suggest moving, without edits, the text referring to this at the bottom of the Early life section;

He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Corps Reserve in October 1929. He received a regular commission in the United States Army Air Corps in January 1930. While finishing at Ohio State, he took flight training at Norton Field in Columbus, in 1931–32. On June 9, 1934, he married Helen Maitland.

..to the start of the Career section. SmallMoves (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit was completed. Seemed reasonable and correct. SmallMoves (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam war

The common point of high-ranking American generals during the Vietnam War is that they all blamed politics.They usually don't talk about being unpopular with the people.They did not talk about the enemy's tactics like the French commanders did in the first Indochina war, but instead blamed politics.

Wanting to bomb the Chinese and the Soviet Union further proves that American generals are so war-like that they don't care about the consequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX7m-MnjsKA

You may think that the s75 dvina must be fired 50 times to destroy an American plane in the wiki about operation rolling thunder, but that is because North Vietnam uses fake missile firing tactics. So the calculation is different from North Vietnam's data.

There are some people who think bombing can continue in operation linebaker 2. However, the North Vietnamese still had many missiles, and at the end of the bombing rounds, they also let them fire unlimitedly.

And after many years of bombing, American generals must also know that there is no way North Vietnam will surrender after a bombing campaign. North Vietnam is not Serbia and Hanoi is not Belgrade. Operation Linebaker 2 was an operation to prove they had not lost even though the final terms were still favorable to North Vietnam.

The Paris Agreement stipulates that the United States and other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam like the 1954 Geneva Agreement.In the agreement, PAVN did not have to withdraw from the south, but the US and its allies had to withdraw 14.244.118.237 (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)