Belief And Seeing Are Both Often Wrong.

I Don't Object To Its Being Called "mcnamara's War." I Think It Is A Very Important War And I Am Pleased To Be Identified With It And Do Whatever I Can To Win It.

[general Curtis] Lemay Recognized That What He Was Doing Would Be Thought Immoral If His Side Has Lost. But What Makes It Immoral If You Lose And Not Immoral If You Win?

All The Evidence Of History Suggests That Man Is Indeed A Rational Animal, But With A Near Infinite Capacity For Folly. . . . He Draws Blueprints For Utopia, But Never Quite Gets It Built. In The End He Plugs Away Obstinately With The Only Building Material Really Ever At Hand--his Own Part Comic, Part Tragic, Part Cussed, But Part Glorious Nature.

What Makes It Immoral If You Lose And Not Immoral If You Win?

...but Highly Placed Sources Within The Kennedy Administration Disagreed: "[t]he Assumption That The Strategic Nuclear Balance Mattered In Any Way Was Wrong... As Far As I Am Concerned, It Made No Difference... If My Memory Serves Me Correctly, We Had Some Five Thousand Strategic Nuclear Warheads As Against T Heir Three Hundred. Can Anyone Seriously Tell Me That Their Having Three Hundred And Forty Would Have Made Any Difference? The Military Balance Wasn't Changed. I Didn't Believe It Then, And I Don't Believe It Now..."