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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I really appreciate all the responses in this thread.


Originally posted by donwhite
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]


Yes, you are correct. Now, notice that was World War II. By the 1980s, the Soviet Union was nowhere being the country it once was in World War II.

I just don't see how any of that is relevant. We're talking the Cold War/hypothetical World War III here, not WWII.




posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   


posted by sweatmonicaIdo

I really appreciate all the responses in this thread. "If wars are won or lost in the logistics command, who won WW2?"

Yes, you are correct. Now, notice that was World War II. By the 1980s, the Soviet Union was nowhere being the country it once was in World War II.


Thank you, sweatmonicaIdo



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Here's a new question for you skeptics. What hypothetical scenario can you imagine that would be like the one put forward here?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   


posted by Justin Oldham
Here's a new question: What scenario can you imagine that would be like the one put forward here? [Edited by Don W]



Hypothetical Q: Was winning the Cold War worth it? A1. For the ordinary citizens of the old USSR, a resounding YES! A2. For the ordinary citizens of the US of A, a resounding NO!

Instead of Americans reaping the harvest of a half century of plentiful sowing, we only get the urging to spend even more. We must be lineal descendants of the original Berserkers! It’s not as if we ever really needed 10 supercarriers, but now we are getting 2 more supercarriers to add to our already overstocked fleet. I think it is correct to say that the US has more than 2 X operational nuclear subs than ALL the rest of the world combined! And we have signed on with General Dynamics to deliver to us better than 1 sub a year for the next 5 years. Come Quickly, Sweet Jesus.

Warmongering has been an American staple since the First war against the Native Americans in 1626 in Massachusetts. I do not recall a single generation - 20 years - since 1789 when America was not inflicting death and destruction on someone either here or abroad. It’s disgusting.

In 2007, we are still looking for an enemy worthy of our $700 billion a year war expense - including interest on past borrowing and our shameful veterans care. After 6 years of Texas-style hypocrisy, B43 still is not delivering on his oft repeated claim to give a dam about our veterans. B43 is quick to say “We thank you for your service!” Sec Def Gates blathers the usual party line about “getting to the bottom of this” and “seeing the matter is set right.” But when asked if there would be any resignations or firings, he said, “No.” You catch us, we fix it. How old to you have to be to learn the definition of “accountability?” Clearly, no one in the Republican Party knows it.

I do hope Scooter Libby gets 100 years in the pen! The only lying member of this administration we have been able to get to trial.


[edit on 2/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Okay. Last try. Monica was looking for a hypothetical military scenario to discuss. If the one he proposes is not acceptable for general speculative discussion, what would be?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
Okay. Last try. Monica was looking for a hypothetical military scenario to discuss. If the one he proposes is not acceptable for general speculative discussion, what would be?


Thanks Justin, but I have to say this thread is quite a failure. As much as I agree with donwhite on a lot of things, it is simply not what I was looking to talk about.

Let me change directions slightly. Does North Korea even represent a significant strategic avenue for China and the U.S.? The Korean Peninsula is known as the last front of the Cold War, and it is true, as it is the only place left in the world where ideology defines the hostility more than the usual suspect, economics. Despite its natural resources, it is not as if North Korea has any oil or natural gas. Does North Korea really offer anything for China and Russia, or is it just a way to bolster its image?



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
North Korea is a ready-made proxy waiting to be used. Even if nobody else thinks my scenario is plausible, I do. China can use them like a sock puppet any time they like.

I can think of several ways that a scheming U.S. President might use North Korea to his/her advantage. the DPRK also makes a handy foil for China, any time they feel like sticking us in the eye or the butt.

Border security matters to China. If they ever felt that North Korea was sufficiently out of control, they'd get jiggy. I'm sure that Kim Jong Il is the punch line of many jokes behind closed doors. I wouldn't be surprised if he knows it, too.

If he himself wanted to trigger a war, he could. Under the 'wrong' circumstances, he could fake the Chinese in to backing him while his army rolls into South Korea. Then again, the Chinese could egg him on until he does does...to suit their own purposes.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   


posted by sweatmonicaIdo



posted by Justin Oldham
Okay. Last try. Monica was looking for a hypothetical military scenario to discuss. If the one he proposes is not acceptable for general speculative discussion, what would be?


Thanks Justin, but I have to say this thread is quite a failure. As much as I agree with donwhite on a lot of things, it is simply not what I was looking to talk about.

Let me change directions. Does North Korea even represent a significant strategic avenue for China and the U.S.? The Korean Peninsula is known as the last front of the Cold War and it is true, as it is the only place left in the world where ideology defines the hostility more than the usual suspect, economics. Despite its natural resources, it is not as if North Korea has any oil or natural gas. Does North Korea really offer anything for China and Russia, or is it just a way to bolster its image?



If Kim Il Sung was a true believer, then Mao Zedong was an opportunist! If Joe Stalin was a paranoid megalomanic, then Kim Jung Il is the last living convert - Fidel Castro aside - of Vladimir Lenin. What’s it all mean in geopolitical terms? NK is an isolated place where its people suffer (a Western term) under extreme deprivation (by Western standards) but who seem to have embraced the ideology without reservations. My use of parenthetical expressions, is meant to bring to the reader’s attention that much of what we find “wrong” with NK is only because NK does not conform to generally accept Western accounting practices.

I had the pleasure to visit South Korea in 1953-54, as a young AF airman. I viewed first hand the near complete destruction of Seoul and the poverty that was endemic on the road through Yung-dung-po to K14 Kimpo from the capital. As memory serves, about 20 miles. I’ve been to Inchon. And I spent 7 days on K55 Paegnyong Do. TDY with the 15th AISS. And I was assigned to K47 Chun Chon for a few days. Friends of mine have been working in SK the past 3 years and send me pictures regularly. It must be one of the grandest recoveries ever made in much less than 50 years.

SK could buy NK, if they would give a warranty deed. The one lesson we need to learn is not to let half of a people prosper and the other half remain in abject poverty. Like Israel and Gaza, for example. And etc.

NK barely rises to the level of “client state” to the PRC. Much of its food and many raw materials and some electricity are all furnished by the PRC. If Beijing pulled the plug, NK would be in the Asian version of Europe’s Dark Ages. America is treating NK like we have treated Haiti since it became the first (and only) free black republic in the Hemisphere. 1814. We have treated NK like we have treated Cuba for 48 years without justification by any logical standard. We are mortally afraid of socialism in the Hemisphere. The America mantra is death to socialists!

Just as Israel would never speak to an Arab - Palestinian - were it not for the constant annoyance of suicide bombers, so the US would never speak to NK but for the atomic bombs NK may or may not have. The PRC has never lost sight of Taiwan and its ultimate purpose to incorporate it into the PRC. But for the 7th Fleet that would have been accomplished long ago. So, the PRC will toy with the NK just to keep the US on a short tether.

NK most nearly resembles a throw-away card in a game of Hearts.

[edit on 2/26/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
until Vladimir Putin started to stealthly change the beast back to what it used to be.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join