It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was winning the Cold War much of a victory at all?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
The following is the second entry for my blog, but I felt it was even more appropriate to post it on ATS as well.

The question came to me today when I was looking on Wikipedia and discovered Peace Mission 2005. It took place just two years ago and it was the first time the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation actually participated in a join military exercise.

Peace Mission 2005

First off, let me point out how much things have really changed in the last 20 years. Its very bewildering at times to actually look at the situation and think about it. 20 years ago, China and the USSR were the worst of enemies. Looking even further back, China and the USSR nearly started World War III in 1969 during the Sino-Soviet border clashes. Naked numerical superiority was all China had to hold onto then, because the USSR was so overwhelmingly powerful in the Cold War, especially in the 1970s and the 1980s.

But in 2007, 16 years after the Soviet Union died, we see a completely different world, one that hardly resembles what we once had. The U.S., being the lone superpower, finds that friends are not only difficult to come by, but also China, the country that once shared America's deep hostility with the USSR, is now a potential superpower as well as a potential enemy. And the remnant of that once-hostile superior, Russia, is now the best friend China could ever ask for. My my, things have indeed changed so much.

So I ask, has fortunes for the U.S. gotten any better despite defeating the USSR? Being lone superpower has its benefits, but it is also a curse, as we end up being responsible for just about all the happenings in the rest of the world. Our unilaterialism has cost us allies, and the country we once thought was gone for good, has only taken a different, albeit significantly weaker, form but can still dance with the big boys if necessary. We have a potential superpower and a former superpower bearing down on us, challenging just about every realm of global domination, be it consumer products, space exploration, petroleum, natural gas, and military force.

Of course, the emergence of the dragon and the re-surgence of the bear isn't all bad news. As stated in the above Wikipedia entry, Peace Mission 2005 could in fact be a test to see if Chinese and Russian forces could stabilize North Korea in case of a leadership collapse in Pyongyang. If so, that means the North Korea problem may require further heartache and sacrifice from my country. Depends on how one looks at it.

Before closing, I just want to state that I am so happy that the Cold War ended. Things may have been much simpler back, but there is nothing good that can come from having two ultra-powerful countries dominating the entire globe and constantly facing off economically and military. I truly believe that the Cold War would have come down to World War III eventually. It is the most unimaginably garagantuan war that never happened and I thank God every day that it is the way it is. While I concede that America's Cold War survival was not the victory as we popularly see it, I still would not want it any other way. It is just that we are simply facing some troubling challenges and it is not clear how we will respond to them.




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Hello folks. I was asked to weigh in on this one with some food for thought, so here I am. Fire up your FOC's, TOC's, and HQ's. I've got a scenario for you that will demonstrate what 'monica is talking about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your hypothetical scenario is that North Korea (DPRK) collapses, prompting Russia and China to act in their own national interests. The peripheral questions are, a) how do they do it, and b) Does the U.S. get involved?

Hypoethical: Kim Jong Il dies without naming a successor or making preparations for a transitional government. DPRK is in chaos. A) Government offices are closed. B) Bureaucratic functions cease. C) Army is on highest alert. D) border security fails, allowing an increasing number of refugees to flee in to China.

Assumption: Russia and China will know about this collapse before the Western intelligence agencies can report on it. This gives them a 24-hour “head start.”

Russian response: [Day One] Give the Chiense a free hand.

Chinese response: [Day One] Media blackout goes in to effect. Media deception goes in to effect. Mobilize territorial army command, force border closure using 14 –24 motor divisions. DPRK airspace monitored by drone and space command.

Day Two Beings:

The Russian Assessment: President Putin is advised that no direct Russian interests are affected by Chinese intervention in North Korea. Relations may be improved with China if Moscow continues to be supportive from a distance.

The Chinese Assessment.: Premier Wu Jin Tao is advised to enter North Korea to head off a reguee crisis and strengthen national interests by heading off a U.S. response that many believe will result in a wider war.

Russian Activity: [Day Two] Putin issues a statement making it clear that Russian forces near China are not stepping up their alerts. The crisis in the DPRK is deplorable, but not unexpected. Chinese intervention is most desirable so long as Beijing continues to observe the Geneva Conventions. Back-channel talks may begin with China to conclude trade deals meant to secure Russian good will.

Chinese Activities: [Day Two] China’s State-run t.v. networks announce to the world that Kim Jon Il is dead. Announcers declare the humanitarian intentions of the People’s Liberation Army as it rolls in to North Korea with 40 divisons. Air space intrusion is minimal because PlA commanders know that the U.S. is watching, looking for the presence of tactical or strategic bombing assets.

//Break//

Possible Reasons for U.S. involvement:

1. The current U.N. SecGen is the former Presdient of South Korea. He may fear that the PLA won't stop at the DMZ. He may pick up the phone and call Washington.

2. Members of the U.N. may not like the unilateral 'style' of PRC activity. this could present the U.S. President with an opportunity to justify past American activities by getting on board the "bash China" bandwagon.

3. Concerns over human rights abuses may spark U.S. anti-China rhetoric. Calls from the Korean-American segment of U.S. society may escalate this diplomatic mud-slinging.

4. Existing U.S. policy for the region may seem to dictate an immediate response.

5. If fleeing elements of the DPRK government were to end up in South Korea, they could ask for help to repel the Chinese invasion. this may spark a move on teh part of South Korea to open its borders to refugees, which may risk a military clash with PLA forces.

6. If the Western media takes a dim view of America's "wait and see" attitude, international opinion could shift against China...which might result in swift levying of sanctions by any number of non-combatant nations. this would force a U.S. response of some kind.

7. U.S. forces in the region may be unintentionally affected by the PLA's movements in to the DPRK. a) ECM may prevent surveillance. b) ASW may damage U.S. vessels in the region. c) Possible FoF mistakes by DPRK naval units.

//Break//



posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
That was a superb layout of what I was thinking. I was, hwoever, a bit miffled that Russia took a more third-person stance. The Peace Mission 2005 exercise was a demonstration of the capabilities of a Chinese-Russian coalition, so it seems rather likely to me that China would go in with Russian military assistance.

Anyway, I'd like to hear some opinions on the matter, as well as more of Justin's analysis on the matter and what exactly is at stake here.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Please let me explain my reasoning behind the Russian stance in this hypothetical excersize.

First and foremost, stop and think about who's in charge of Russia just now. Vladimir Putin is an old-school spook who knows how to play the proxy game. He's also the ineritor of the Chechnya campaign. He's not going t ospend blood and treasure in what he regards as somebody else's back yard. Playing nice with China is one thing. Enabling them is something else.

Hands-off also means that the Russians can appear to be peace brokers later on. REmember that Russia used to be a super-power. They'd like to have a taste of that again, if they can. Not only do they preserve their diplomatic capitol, but they also preserve...other options. If world opinion and circumstance turn too far...they could...you know...

Why would the regime in Moscow consider betrayal? Again, we go back to Vladimir Putin. He doesn't like "anybody." He might play nice, but only because it suits his purposes. He knows just how twitchy the West can be. He also knows just how arrogant the Americans and the Chinese are. Atlest, that's how he sees things.

This scenario isn't just about who's got what military options. It's also about the so-called "great minds" involved. Think of it as a test of national psychology if you can't generate a profile of the people who might be leading those nations in this hypothetical confrontation.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Ah, the old "There are no friends. Only enemies." proverb.

Under what situations would Russia actually assist China in the invasion?



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Devoted followers of Ronald W Reagan and Pope John Paul 2 each claim their man defeated the USSR singlehandedly. Hard for me to believe, but they would not lie to us, would they?



[edit on 2/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Under what situations would Russia actually assist China in the invasion?


Let's be a bit more precise here. You mean to ask, "under what conditions would Russia committ military forces to fight along side those of China?"

Remember that in today's world, logistical support counts for a lot. In this pretend brew-up, Russian cooperation means a lot of things that aren't overtly stated. It can mean a pro-China voice in the U.N., which can block sanctions. It can mean 10,000 UAZ trucks loaded with supplies that would just happened to be convenient to the war effort. It can also mean access to satellite time and HUMINT that could...result in any number of things.

If this hypothetical war spills over beyind DPRK, you may very well see Russia pick a side. Your assumption is that this conflict would remain local. Under the terms I laid out, it would most likely...not.

Since we don't have a lot of responses here, why don't you try posting your counter-moves as the U.S., and I'll show you what I mean.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham

1. The UN SecGen is the former President of South Korea. He may fear the PLA won't stop at the DMZ. He may pick up the phone and call Washington.


China has not been aggressive in the last century. It is not the Chinese nature. The China-Vietnam border is an area where I’ll bet a surveyor has not been since the 19th century. I don’t think we know all about the Tibet matter. I have a strong suspicion the CIA was using Tibet for covert moves against China. The PLA shut it down. The PLA stopped at the DMZ in 1951. Taiwan has been a province of China for a millennia before 1949. China adventurism? It’s just not there.


2. Members of the UN may not like the unilateral 'style' of PRC activity. this could present the US President with an opportunity to justify past American activities by getting on board the "bash China" bandwagon.


China has a veto. It can stand against the US in those arenas where it chooses to do so. Most of our “trumpeting” in the UN is for domestic consumption.


3. Concerns over human rights abuses may spark US anti-China rhetoric. Calls from Korean-Americans may escalate this diplomatic mud-slinging.


OK, so it happens. China has a long history of ignoring other people’s rhetoric.


4. Existing US policy for the region may seem to dictate an immediate response.


Not so. Japan wants no war in the neighborhood. South Korea wants no war. Taiwan wants no war. Vietnam would not want a war. Only the US would want a war.


5. If fleeing elements of the DPRK (North Korea) government were to end up in South Korea, they could ask for help to repel the Chinese invasion. this may spark a move on the part of South Korea to open its borders to refugees, which may risk a military clash with PLA forces.


SK does not have a military capability outside its own borders. SK does not want a great influx of NK refugees any more than the PRC or RF wants. On that score, the potential refugees will find little willing help or welcome outside their own country.


6. If the Western media takes a dim view of America's "wait and see" attitude, international opinion could shift against China . . which might result in swift levying of sanctions by any number of non-combatant nations. this would force a US response of some kind.


China has been slowly building a good hand of paper holdings of the US and is not worried about what the US says publicly. Much of our so-called security manufacturing has been “out-sourced” to China so, in the bottom line, wherever China finds itself, there the US will be also. We’re partners for life. Without benefit of clergy!


7. U.S. forces in the region may be unintentionally affected by the PLA's movements into the DPRK. a) ECM may prevent surveillance. b) ASW may damage US vessels in the region. c) Possible FoF mistakes by DPRK naval units.


Navy? Do the North Korean’s have a navy? Is it any stronger than the Vietnam “navy” that attacked the US in the Tonkin Gulf a few decades ago?

[edit on 2/22/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
In the event of a catastrophic collapse the DPRK, I really don't see China or Russia invading and preventing a reunification of the North and South.

I may be wrong, but I just don't see it. The reunification of Germany was probably a much bigger deal to Moscow, yet they allowed it to occur. China probably wouldn't like a Republic of Korea and U.S. ally right at their border, I think they'd rather live with it than attack and risk all out war with the U.S.

Interesting analysis though.

[edit on 2/22/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Okay, I'm just a guest at this party, but here goes.

1. If the DPRK regime fails, a lot of strategic assets become "up for grabs." If you are Wu Jin Tao, the last thing you want is the N.K. nuclear program growing legs and walking off.

2. The refugee problem is one that China has been kicking around for some time. The S.K. DMZ is enough to convince most regufees that they'd rather go to China, or take their chance trying to reach non-S.K. territories. Chinese military planners may decide (in this hypothetical sceniario) that it's best to stop the refugees from leaving North Korea in teh first place.

3. If the PLA controls the DPRK, the Chinese politicians who 'oversee' future reunification wiht South Korea stand to benefit greatly from prestige and trade deals with the 'new' Korea. Some kind words from russia to world leaders might not hurt. this rejoined Korea would have many reasons to be grateful to China, which could matter as the new economic power blocks begin to take shape.

4. Having things their own way would guarantee increased border security forhte Chinese, who are big on such things. If this gambit takes place before they make their push for Taiwan, the Chinese might find themselves in a position to deter American intervention in that "conflict."

5. Who's to say that the Russians don't encourage the Chinese to do this? Both of hese countires would stand to gain prestige if they can con, cow, or crush Western endeavors that relate to this potential crisis.

I can go no, but you get the idea. This is just an intellectual excersize. There are other possibiities that could result from a North Korean collapse.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
To be honest, I was never sure how exactly the U.S. would react. Militarily, the U.S. would definitely bolster their forces in the region, by adding an Airborne Control Squadron to survey the activity north of the border. In addition to the CVSG already in the Sea of Japan, the U.S. government would ensure that another CVSG is put on task, to provide more firepower if necessary.

Unfortunately, such moves would in fact result in deteriorated relations. By doing so, the U.S. is taking the actions of the Chinese as clearly hostile and God knows what's going to happen after that.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Hmm? Over here we date the “End” of the Cold War as 1989-1991 with no specific day because it was a series of events that ultimately led to the presidency of Mr. Boris Yeltsin of the successor Russian Federation. Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Chairman of the Communist Party, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because it was due in large part to his decision that the USSR would go peacefully into the night and not that he would conjure some foreign adventure to forestall the inevitable collapse of what the CIA belatedly labeled a “command economy.” By the bye, the evidence strongly points to decades of wilful mis-information by the CIA which always, say again always overestimated the real strength of the USSR by several orders of magnitude. Were they puppets or tools of the American elite which I have called the R&Fs, that is, the Rich and Famous who own and rule our country? Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex.”

George H. W. Bush, a/k/a Bush41, was sworn into the presidency on Jan. 20, 1989. By 1991, the submissive Reagan-ites were claiming that it was their own Ronnie Reagan who had defeated the USSR! The same man who said trees caused acid rain. That cow flatus was damaging the ozone layer. A Reagan-ite most nearly resembles a mole, that is, it is blind in the light of day. Not too much later, and perhaps to be one of the 2 required “miracles” to be attributed to him for saint-hood, Pope John Paul II and his cortege of sycophants in Rome began to claim that it was he, the Pope and not Reagan, who had caused and brought about the downfall of the USSR. “There are more things wrought by prayer than this world will ever know.” JP2 claimed he did it on his trip to Poland in 1980. At the Gdansk (old Danzig) shipyard, led by Lech Walesa. Solidarity. Some miracles are so slow in manifesting themselves that it is hard for doubters like me to see any connection. Perhaps miracles are much like a woman’s beauty, largely in the eye of the beholder?

In any case, we learned - thousands of billions too late - that the USSR had been a paper tiger all along. But, what the hey, we gave our CIA directors a medal and probably a bonus. It was after all, good fun! Oh, should we remember or should we forget the Air Force’s 69 airmen who went quietly KIA during the pre-Key Hole program era in secret, always denied overflights of the USSR?

Alfred Lord Tennyson said it best in the seminal: 'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die,

Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them Volley'd and thunder'd;

When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd. Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred!


[edit on 2/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   
donwhite,

The USSR was as much a paper tiger as the U.S. was. In other words, it was no paper tiger. It was not an overestimation by anyone. The USSR was as powerful as it was percieved to be, maybe even more powerful. It does not the CIA to figure that out.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   


posted by sweatmonicaIdo

donwhite, The USSR was no paper tiger. It was not an overestimation by anyone. The USSR was as powerful as it was perceived to be, maybe even more powerful. It does not the CIA to figure that out. [Edited by Don W]



Au contraire! If you ignore the 30,000 or so atomic bombs and the Red Army's massed infantry and large number of tanks, the USSR could not “whip” the mountain men of Afghanistan. The USSR would never let ordinary tourists off the Intourist trails because, 50 km (30 miles) away it was only dirt say mud and gravel roads. The only land connection with the far east of the USSR was by the Trans-Siberian RR which was single track most of the way. Upwards of 14 days to traverse, if it did not snow. Since Ivan the Terrible its neighbors have thwarted its need for a warm water port onto the world’s oceans. Today’s Baltic Sea port of Kaliningrad - old German Konigsberg - is landlocked from the RF and either Belarus or Lithuania must be crossed to get to it. The Baltic Sea can be closed by a gunboat at the Straits of Denmark, which is not as wide as the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. I’m not “knocking” the Russians, but I’m not giving them any credit they do not deserve. Fortunately, from Kruschev onward, no Soviet leader wanted to see his country annihilated and so, we never had that dooms-day nuclear exchange so many of us worried about for so long. The USSR a super-power? No way.


[edit on 2/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Au contraire! If you ignore the 30,000 or so atomic bombs and the Red Army massed infantry and large number of tanks, the USSR could not “whip” the mountain men of Afghanistan. The USSR would never let ordinary tourists off the Intourist trails because, 50 km (30 miles) away it was only dirt say mud and gravel roads. The only land connection with the far east of the USSR was by the Trans-Siberian RR which was single track most of the way. Upwards of 14 days to traverse, if it did not snow. Since Ivan the Terrible its neighbors have thwarted its need for a warm water port onto the world’s oceans. Today’s Baltic Sea port of Kaliningrad - old German Konigsberg - is landlocked from the RF and either Belarus or Lithuania must be crossed to get to it. The Baltic Sea can be closed by a gunboat at the Straits of Denmark, which is not as wide as the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. I’m not “knocking” the Russians, but I’m not giving them any credit they do not deserve. Fortunately, from Kruschev onward, no Soviet leader wanted to see his country annihilated and so, we never had that dooms-day nuclear exchange so many of us worried about for so long. The USSR a super-power? No way.


The U.S. lost in Vietnam. Does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower?

The USSR was very much a superpower and many legitimate military experts would tell you the Soviets would have very much handed out asses to us if it came to that.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   


posted by sweatmonicaIdo

The question came to me today when I was looking on Wikipedia and discovered Peace Mission 2005. It was the first time the Peoples Republic of China and the Russian Federation actually participated in a joint military exercise. Let me point out how much things have changed in the last 20 years. It’s bewildering at times to actually look at the situation and think about it. 20 years ago, China and the USSR were the worst of enemies. [Edited by Don W]



It is true that for well over a half century - since 1917 - China and the USSR had energetically disputed the boundary between the 2 countries in remote regions of both. Sometimes it involved exchanges of artillery fire. But, the boundary issues were finally resolved, so I would not characterize the two as the “ . . worst of enemies.”



But in 2007, 16 years after the Soviet Union died, we see a completely different world. The U.S. being the lone superpower, finds that friends are difficult to come by, but China, the country that once shared America's deep hostility with the USSR, is now a potential superpower as well as a potential enemy. The once-hostile superior, Russia, is now the best friend China could ever ask for. My my, things have indeed changed so much.



it is not always easy to separate the world’s feelings towards the United States as a country or insinuation, from the feelings they have towards the current Administration’s policies of the US. Americans are constantly propagandized to make the two into one. As for China, I view it neither as a potential enemy nor as a potential superpower. Chinese prosperity is unevenly shared between the 300 million so-called Coastals and the 1 billion Inlanders.

The PRC recently admitted to 45,000 “incidents” requiring the PLA to restore order. China is now the worst polluted country on earth. This criminal ignoring of the environment will be felt 20-30 years down the line, in the worst imaginable ways. Cheap labor is still cheap labor. Communism is dead in China, at least in the current hierarchy. China is slipping into the worst example of rampant capitalism gone awry. No superpower here.



I ask has the fortunes of the U.S. gotten any better despite defeating the USSR? Being the lone superpower has its benefits, but it is also a curse, as we end up being responsible for just about all the happenings in the rest of the world. The country we once thought was gone for good, has only taken a different, albeit significantly weaker, form but can still dance with the big boys if necessary.



The RF cannot meet its Army payroll reliably. The US is said to be paying those units guarding the RF’s atom bombs. An expenditure of which I would approve, if asked. You can go to the dance but if you don’t have the tickets, you’ll be a wall-flower.



“ . . Peace Mission 2005 could test if Chinese and Russian forces could [work together to] stabilize North Korea in case of a leadership collapse in Pyongyang. If so, that means the North Korea problem may require further heartache and sacrifice from my country. Depends on how one looks at it.



I can’t tell if you are referring to the RF or the PRC when you say “ . . my country.” Or the US. I really don’t know why the US power-elite ignores North Korea or Cuba, for that matter. The people of both countries have suffered as much as the US can inflict suffering on a country without actually bombing it as we have done in Iraq and condoned in Lebanon. I understand the lesson in Cuba to the rest of the poor of the Western Hemisphere is “Do Not Mess With American Corporations” as in the American Sugar Refining Company seized by the Cuban Government. We may also be warning the Hemisphere not to mess with the Mafia as Castro did when he ran the Mafia out of Havana. I just don’t know why we still mal-treat Cuba and North Korea. Or Haiti. But that is yet another story. We plainly don’t like black run countries.



I concede that America's Cold War survival was not the victory as we popularly see it, I still would not want it any other way. It is just that we are simply facing some troubling challenges and it is not clear how we will respond to them. [Edited by Don W]



Yes, we Americans do face serious challenges. But I view the Russia thing and the China thing as distractions. Just as we spend more energy on arguing the abortion issue - since 1974 - and the religion in our public schools issue - since the 1960s - we have too little time remaining to discuss immigration, Universal Access to Affordable Health Care and educating our children. Not to mention repairing our infrastructure. Etc.

Here follow some stats from the UC System. California is the first US state where whites are no longer in the majority. The breakdown being, white 44%, Hispanic 35%, Asian 12%, Blacks 7% and all others, 2%. At UC Berkeley, enrollment is as follows, white 29%, Hispanic 11%, Asian 45%, black 4% and all others, 10%. The UC Davis campus is 33% white, 13% Hispanic, 43% Asian, 3% black and 8% all others. The UCLA is 31% white, 13% Hispanic, 43% Asian, 2% black and 11% all others. I’ll bet you “all others” is mostly Middle Easterners. Arabs. Muslims. And etc. From the NY Times Weekly Edition, January 21, 2007, p. 11.

[edit on 2/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   


posted by sweatmonicaIdo



posted by donwhite
Au contraire! The USSR a super-power? No way.


The U.S. lost in Vietnam. Does that mean the U.S. is not a superpower?
[Edited by Don W]



That is correct. To its credit (or discredit) the US was wiling to suffer 59,000 KIA in the process of losing a war that lasted for our part from 1964 to 1974. Even worse, we admit to killing 1,000,000 Vietnamese and they claim we killed 3,000,000. Vietnam is just beginning to recover from the death and destruction inflicted on them. I expect looking back in a decade, it will be much the same in Iraq. We will have lost there, too, but our casualties will not top 5,000. It is argued whether 65,000 Iraqis or 300,000 have been killed, as opposed to dying because of lack of prompt and adequate health care caused by the war and etc. In both cases, Iraq and Vietnam, the lesson for the victims to take away is that it is very unwise to oppose the US. Yes, we (the US) can be “beaten” but you - the other country - must accept death and destruction in humongous proportions. For our part, I hope we have learned we can topple regimes, we can capture territory, but we cannot control the hearts and minds of the people.

The US is a superpower because we have over 120 million people at work. We have a food surplus every year. In fact we are planning to take a lot of corn and soy beans and instead of feeding starving Africans, we are going to make ethanol to run our 200 million cars and trucks. Despite thee simple chemical fact that ethanol takes more BTU to make than it delivers. Our currency is the world’s currency. Rich Saudis and rich Chinese - an oxymoron? - seek out our indicia of debt to buy! That’s a superpower!




The USSR was very much a superpower . . many military experts would tell you the Soviets would have handed our asses to us if it came to that.



After the RIF - reduction in force - under Bill Clinton, the US has not had an army large enough to invade the Russian Federation. We have had vastly more superior aircraft then the USSR ever had. Much better tanks although not in the same numbers the Red Army once had. Our nuclear submarines walk away from 2nd rate Soviets subs. And are safe for the crews, too, not a claim the USSR could have made. The Saturn 5 worked. The N1 did not. Neither the Soviet Union nor the Russian Federation comes close to being a superpower, then or now.

The CIA made the USSR a threat to the US for its own reasons.


[edit on 2/23/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'm kinda suprised that it even has to be questioned. With the Cold War, everyone faced nuclear annihliation, civilization itself faced destruction, and the entire planet was seperated into two pervetedly well armed and hostile camps. Now its not.

Of course things are better.

And look at the problems we have today, Iraq, Iran, NK, and global terrorism. NK is clearly an outgrowth of the soviet attempt at world empire. Iraq was armed with, yes, some american weapons, but mostly soviet weapons, and the US tolerated Iraq because it was a geopolitical 'block' agianst Iran, and thus a block at soviet control of the middle east. Al-Qaida and global jihadism bascially grew out of the afghan-soviet war, and the US's attempts to arm the mujahideeners against the soviets. Even the existence of the Iranian theocracy is related to that problem, we overthrew socalist and soviet leaning Mossadegh to block the soviets also.

So yeah, we're definitly better off having won the Cold War, even if we're still dealing with the consequences of that victory.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
On how easy it is to forget.

During World War 2, the US lost 2,500 sailors in the Murmansk Archangel convoy run. 30,000 US solders were stationed in Iran to assist in the transfer of supplies into the USSR through Iran. The major part of the US aid sent to the Soviet Union in War 2 passed through Iran.

A short list follows:
22,000 airplanes, 12,500 Sherman tanks, 380,000 trucks, 35,000 jeeps, 8,000 tractors, i.e., trucks to pull trailers, 11,800 RR boxcars, 4.2 million tons of food, 62 million square yards of wool, 107 million square yards of cotton, 34 million uniforms, 15 million pairs of boots, 956,000 miles of telephone cable, 35,000 radio stations and 380,000 field telephones. In 1945, 2/3rds of all Red Army trucks were “Made in USA.”

This list does not include 10s of millions of dollars worth of medical and hospital supplies. Nor does it include 100s of 1000s of barrels of gasoline and oil, nor does it include the 100s of thousands of rounds of artillery shells and rockets. Rifle bullets beyond belief. We sent that to Russia and supplied our own Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. In 1945, we had 13 million men under arms. If wars are won or lost in the logistics command, who won WW2?

Now that's the measure of a superpower.

Note: 4.2 million tons of food would feed 15 million people one year at 1.5 pounds per person per day. It may or may not be relevant, but after War 2 only the USSR refused to pay for the US aid. DW


[edit on 2/24/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Okay, folks. Don't hurt him. If you want something else to do, try this.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join