Thread by @18airbornecorps

1 of XVIII: The atomic bomb did more than end WWII. It ushered in a new way of thinking about military force and state power.

2 of XVIII: And, in 1949, when the Soviet Union successfully tested its own nuclear weapons, this new devastating capability split the world between two powers, the US and the USSR, with the ability to wipe out large swaths of civilizations.

3 of XVIII: Today we start a weeklong series of threads regarding the remaking of the @USArmy during this time, primarily focusing on the period between 1956 and 1961.

4 of XVIII: This was a wild time for the Army, one in which the service faced real questions about its relevance and mission. The Soviet Union had the bomb. We had the bomb. The dark cloud of a possible apocalyptic war hovered constantly over the world.

5 of XVIII: In November, 1955, General Lyman Lemnitzer, at the time commander of @EighthArmyKorea, and later @ArmyChiefStaff, told the force: “Today it seems to me the very survival of the Army, as we presently conceive it, is at stake.”

6 of XVIII: Two successive Army Chief of Staff's, Matthew Ridgway and then Maxwell Taylor, WW2 commanders of @82ndABNDiv and @101stAASLTDIV, tried and mostly failed to remodel the Army into a force relevant for atomic war.

7 of XVIII: This was also the dawn of modern Army marketing and the birth of Army Public Affairs.

[@USArmyCPA]

8 of XVIII: But, we'll get into all that over the course of the next 5 days.

9 of XVIII: For now, we'll just let you know the plan: every day, from today through Friday, July 17th, we'll provide two stories on the subject, one at 9AM and another at 2PM Eastern.

MilTwitter right now:

10 of XVIII: More importantly, after each thread, the most prominent American #MilTwitter accounts will provide their insights and lessons learned for today's leaders.

11 of XVIII: So throughout this week, you’ll hear from all of the top influencers and thinkers on national security on Twitter.

12 of XVIII: We used four primary sources to create this series. The most critical: this wonderful book by Dr. Brian McAllister Linn that covers an Army lost in the wilderness of a new kind of warfare. Dr. Linn also advised the team in building out the stories.

13 of XVIII: We also relied pretty heavily on this one. Andrew Bacevich is a legend. His 1986 book is generally considered the primary historic reference on this period.

14 of XVIII: We also used the PhD thesis of historian Dr. Paul Jussel. Paul's project, "Intimidating the World: The United States Atomic Army, 1956-1960" was submitted to Ohio State University in 2004.

etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file…

15 of XVIII: Finally, Dr. John Bonin, historian at the @ArmyWarCollege, advised us throughout the development of this series.

ssl.armywarcollege.edu/faculty/index.…

16 of XVIII: There were other odds and ends we used to build these stories out, but these are the primary references. We’ve had great assistance from @Mother_Of_Tanks throughout.

17 of XVIII: So, that's our introduction to the series. More important than these individual series will be the daily discussion with some of the smartest, coolest thought leaders on Twitter, which you can count on twice each day.

XVIII of XVIII: In the meantime, let’s hear from @PatDonahoeArmy, @Mother_of_Tanks, @Erikhistorian, @pptsapper, @GregoryDaddis, @broadcastmike, @TomHeartsTanks, @marinamaral2, @WTFIOGuy.

Re: The Bacevich book (chapter 13): This is a main historic reference (i.e., the definitive work on the subject, at least prior to the Dr. Linn book), not a primary source. We'll release our primary sources for chapters 3 and 7 in the coming days......