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.
alldaylong
reply to post by signalfire
The simple answer to your question is NO !
The Cold War was real. The Cuba missile crisis was real. The Czechoslovakia uprising was real.
benrl
alldaylong
reply to post by signalfire
The simple answer to your question is NO !
The Cold War was real. The Cuba missile crisis was real. The Czechoslovakia uprising was real.
The Cuban missile crisis happened because the US put missiles in turkey because of a missile deficit with the Soviets that didn't exist.
signalfire
Consider that you have a way of life, governmental and economic, that you feel is the best ever. In the US's case, a democratic republic combined with capitalism.
And the 'other guy' has communism as both.
If you wanted to win philosophically as well as on the ground against the other theory; would amassing thousands of nukes and blowing them off the face of the earth, in the process contaminating global air, water and earth really going to be the way to do it? It wasn't called MAD for nothing.
The only real reason (given they were rational) for nukes would be to fight an unknown enemy with unknown abilities, in an all-out war for survival. Otherwise, just diplomacy and maybe some limited skirmishes seems to be the way to go; certainly not such destructive and expensive weapons that in the end, you can't use them, and you bankrupt your people by building them...
alldaylong
signalfire
Consider that you have a way of life, governmental and economic, that you feel is the best ever. In the US's case, a democratic republic combined with capitalism.
And the 'other guy' has communism as both.
If you wanted to win philosophically as well as on the ground against the other theory; would amassing thousands of nukes and blowing them off the face of the earth, in the process contaminating global air, water and earth really going to be the way to do it? It wasn't called MAD for nothing.
The only real reason (given they were rational) for nukes would be to fight an unknown enemy with unknown abilities, in an all-out war for survival. Otherwise, just diplomacy and maybe some limited skirmishes seems to be the way to go; certainly not such destructive and expensive weapons that in the end, you can't use them, and you bankrupt your people by building them...
The nuclear bomb was developed and manufactured by America, Britain and Canada to accelerate the end of WW II
I know sometimes the truth is less romantic but that is the real reason why the bomb was constructed.
signalfire
Consider that you have a way of life, governmental and economic, that you feel is the best ever. In the US's case, a democratic republic combined with capitalism.
And the 'other guy' has communism as both.
If you wanted to win philosophically as well as on the ground against the other theory; would amassing thousands of nukes and blowing them off the face of the earth, in the process contaminating global air, water and earth really going to be the way to do it? It wasn't called MAD for nothing.
The only real reason (given they were rational) for nukes would be to fight an unknown enemy with unknown abilities, in an all-out war for survival. Otherwise, just diplomacy and maybe some limited skirmishes seems to be the way to go; certainly not such destructive and expensive weapons that in the end, you can't use them, and you bankrupt your people by building them...
signalfire
I'm not saying that the people involved in the military were totally fooled into 'fighting the Commie threat'; only that only those at the very highest levels on both sides would have known that the whole thing, or part of the thing, was a ruse.
Comments?
signalfire
alldaylong
signalfire
Consider that you have a way of life, governmental and economic, that you feel is the best ever. In the US's case, a democratic republic combined with capitalism.
And the 'other guy' has communism as both.
If you wanted to win philosophically as well as on the ground against the other theory; would amassing thousands of nukes and blowing them off the face of the earth, in the process contaminating global air, water and earth really going to be the way to do it? It wasn't called MAD for nothing.
The only real reason (given they were rational) for nukes would be to fight an unknown enemy with unknown abilities, in an all-out war for survival. Otherwise, just diplomacy and maybe some limited skirmishes seems to be the way to go; certainly not such destructive and expensive weapons that in the end, you can't use them, and you bankrupt your people by building them...
The nuclear bomb was developed and manufactured by America, Britain and Canada to accelerate the end of WW II
I know sometimes the truth is less romantic but that is the real reason why the bomb was constructed.
Ones that they knew they could never use against other humans without killing themselves a few days later?
signalfire
reply to post by alldaylong
A 'deterrent' that cost untold billions or trillions over the years? For 30+ years? Even after the insanity of it was obvious to the most obtuse Four Star General?
Versus being possibly terrified of an unknown threat from an unknown planet (or several) with unknown capabilities?
You're thinking in Cold War terms. Think in 'false flag, lies and propaganda for our own purposes' terms...
If the Cold War was a real thing, and only that thing, it might be the first time in living memory that the Pentagon has told the truth about anything.
But yes, it would most definitely be self-perpetuating as an economic investment. I just spent several months down in the San Diego area and that place is dripping with Defense Department money going waaaaay back.
alldaylong
signalfire
reply to post by alldaylong
A 'deterrent' that cost untold billions or trillions over the years? For 30+ years? Even after the insanity of it was obvious to the most obtuse Four Star General?
Versus being possibly terrified of an unknown threat from an unknown planet (or several) with unknown capabilities?
You're thinking in Cold War terms. Think in 'false flag, lies and propaganda for our own purposes' terms...
If the Cold War was a real thing, and only that thing, it might be the first time in living memory that the Pentagon has told the truth about anything.
But yes, it would most definitely be self-perpetuating as an economic investment. I just spent several months down in the San Diego area and that place is dripping with Defense Department money going waaaaay back.
The Cold was was also known as "The Arms Race" That's why billions were spent on nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R. built 100 nukes, so America built 150, then because America had 50 more The U.S.S.R built another 100, that gave them 50 more than America, so America built another 100. And on and on it went, until the 1990's when both sides began to dismantle their Warheads.
That's the way it was. Less romantic but the truth.
signalfire
alldaylong
signalfire
reply to post by alldaylong
A 'deterrent' that cost untold billions or trillions over the years? For 30+ years? Even after the insanity of it was obvious to the most obtuse Four Star General?
Versus being possibly terrified of an unknown threat from an unknown planet (or several) with unknown capabilities?
You're thinking in Cold War terms. Think in 'false flag, lies and propaganda for our own purposes' terms...
If the Cold War was a real thing, and only that thing, it might be the first time in living memory that the Pentagon has told the truth about anything.
But yes, it would most definitely be self-perpetuating as an economic investment. I just spent several months down in the San Diego area and that place is dripping with Defense Department money going waaaaay back.
The Cold was was also known as "The Arms Race" That's why billions were spent on nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R. built 100 nukes, so America built 150, then because America had 50 more The U.S.S.R built another 100, that gave them 50 more than America, so America built another 100. And on and on it went, until the 1990's when both sides began to dismantle their Warheads.
That's the way it was. Less romantic but the truth.
And you were told 'that's why' by the MSM, the same people who lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, 9-11, who killed Kennedy and all the rest...