Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a scourge on humanity, and some day may lead to our doom. That is the reason we have to prevent tin horn dictators in N Korea and religious zealots in Iran from getting nukes or building an arsenal. If you don't believe in that, then you are
When you have the upper hand, and can prevent a disaster, you do it. We spent countless billions in an arms race with the Soviets, that could have been used for much more positive things that both liberals and conservatives could agree on.
Don't get me wrong, once the cold war as on, Reagan was brilliant knowing the only way to win the cold war was to cause the Soviet economy to implode, trying to keep up with us.
However it would have been much better to not have had a cold war to begin with.
What gives us the right to say we can have nuclear weapons, but you cannot?
Instead of insulting me, perhaps you should think a little more and realize that I am not talking about what is the most practical thing to do. I am asking about international rights, and where we are given the power to decide.
You're very good at short-term thinking (when you have the upper hand...). What happens if we don't. Then do we just do what Russia or China tells us to do? Does our nation then not have rights of sovereignty?
Reagan did not end the cold war. A succession of presidents conducted that "war".
Unfortunately I think stubborn ole grandpas running this country in the 80s couldn't get away from the soviets being our enemy. It's an attitude that persists to this day.
Are you saying that the occupation of part of Georgia that they call "South Ossetia," the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of part of Ukraine was the fault of the "stubborn ole grandpas running this country in the 80s (who)couldn't get away from the soviets being our enemy"? Or were and are they really an enomy? I think the latter.
When you open Pandora's Box, generally, it cannot be closed again. Sooner or later other countries were always going to develop a nuclear arsenal. It was just a question of having the scientists and the resources to do it. We can try to prevent the likes of North Korea from getting access to nukes but, as a practical matter, that is easier said than done.
I disagree. I think that we could have made non-nuclearization part of the price of our assistance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin in WW II. Alternatively we didn't have to let them take Europe all the way to the former East Germany's boundaries. We didn't have to give them spoils such as East Berlin, Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary,
Uh...you do know that crap-is-stan was largely responsible for the fall of the USSR? If not, check up on it. Ruskies lost so many soldiers that the citizens got pissed off and that helped bring down their regime.
Uh ...you do know that the US was the Major supporter that effort? Study up on it a bit. Had we forgone our meddling there's a good chance the Red's would still be mired down there not us......
I think the Cold War was succeussful non war. All though instead of embracing Russia as an ally and an asset after the fall we let them descend into chaos. If we had given Russia the same support as we did Iraq then we'd likely be a lot closer today on many issues.
Unfortunately I think stubborn ole grandpas running this country in the 80s couldn't get away from the soviets being our enemy. It's an attitude that persists to this day.
Don't really think it should be called a non-war, from '81-'84 alone @ 9100 servicemen died....
I disagree. I think that we could have made non-nuclearization part of the price of our assistance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin in WW II. Alternatively we didn't have to let them take Europe all the way to the former East Germany's boundaries. We didn't have to give them spoils such as East Berlin, Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary,
And if "Uncle Joe" simply refused? Was US assistance to the Soviet Union so material to the Russian war effort that it would have made a significant difference and allowed Germany to hold out in the east? How would you have stopped the Russian from getting those territories given that they were already occupied by them? Another war? How many US and UK lives would that have been worth and was that a price the public was willing to pay?
I disagree. I think that we could have made non-nuclearization part of the price of our assistance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin in WW II. Alternatively we didn't have to let them take Europe all the way to the former East Germany's boundaries. We didn't have to give them spoils such as East Berlin, Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary,
What a strange post.
First, the last thing the USA intended to do during World War II was even let the Soviets know we were developing an atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project was so secret that President Truman found out about it only after he was sworn in as President in April of 1945. This was weeks before the war in Europe ended.
Second, we began giving assistance to the USSR in 1941 which was before the development of the bomb even began. Development of the bomb didn't begin until after experiments showed it was possible to split atoms and cause a nuclear chain reaction. This took place in 1942.
Third, even if the timing had been better than this and the USSR had made such an agreement, how would you have enforced it?
Fourth, we "didn't let the USSR have Eastern Europe all the way to East Germany's boundaries" the Red Army captured it during 1944 and 1945 while the war was going on. You can't "give" someone something that is already in their possession can you?
Fifth, the idea of somehow using our armed forces to drive the Red Army out of Eastern Europe is simply absurd. Americans weren't willing to turn on a former ally that fast. More importantly, American troops wanted to be discharged from the military and sent home after the war in Europe ended in May of 1945.
Sixth, you seem to not understand why we gave aid to the USSR in the first place. It was because we knew that every German soldier the Red Army killed was one that would not be alive to shoot at American soldiers on the western front. Saving Eastern Europe from communism was a minor consideration for Americans during the war indeed. I'd say it was a good deal for this country. We lost 400,000 soldiers in the war. The Soviet Union lost 20,000,000 soldiers and civilians.
There was just wasn't another logical outcome than the one that occurred.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-19-2017 at 06:45 PM..
I disagree. I think that we could have made non-nuclearization part of the price of our assistance to "Uncle Joe" Stalin in WW II. Alternatively we didn't have to let them take Europe all the way to the former East Germany's boundaries. We didn't have to give them spoils such as East Berlin, Poland, Czechoslovakia or Hungary,
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
What a strange post.
First, the last thing the USA intended to do during World War II was even let the Soviets know we were developing an atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project was so secret that President Truman found out about it only after he was sworn in as President in April of 1945. This was weeks before the war in Europe ended.
Second, we began giving assistance to the USSR in 1941 which was before the development of the bomb even began. Development of the bomb didn't begin until after experiments showed it was possible to split atoms and cause a nuclear chain reaction. This took place in 1942.
Third, even if the timing had been better than this and the USSR had made such an agreement, how would you have enforced it?
Fourth, we "didn't let the USSR have Eastern Europe all the way to East Germany's boundaries" the Red Army captured it during 1944 and 1945 while the war was going on. You can't "give" someone something that is already in their possession can you?
Fifth, the idea of somehow using our armed forces to drive the Red Army out of Eastern Europe is simply absurd. Americans weren't willing to turn on a former ally that fast. More importantly, American troops wanted to be discharged from the military and sent home after the war in Europe ended in May of 1945.
There was just wasn't another logical outcome than the one that occurred.
Sixth, what is Stalin said 'Thanks, but no thanks!'?
It seems that jbgusa is confused, and thinks that American assistance to the USSR during World War II was some sort of benevolent gesture. It wasn't - it was utterly pragmatic. There was no living with Hitler. He did not abide by norms of deterrence. He was going to conquer and conquer some more or he was going to die trying. Stalin, on the other hand, responded conventionally to deterrence. So even in isolation, it was in American interests that the USSR defeat, or at least not be defeated by, Nazi Germany. To hinder the chances of being able to beef up the forces Germany was facing in the East would be in direct opposition to American interests.
So Stalin says 'Nyet!'. Then what? Either Nazi Germany prevails - which means a lot more suffering and death among the population/militaries of western Europe and of the armed forces of the United States (not to mention Canada) - or the Soviets eventually do so, which still means a lot more death and dying in western Europe, which will be in worse shape to resist post-war communist machinations, and means the war either drags on a lot longer or the invasion of the continent goes ahead in 1944 with Germany stronger (because they faced a USSR that was weaker due to a lack of assistance) and so the result is more dead Americans (and again, Canadians).
And the point of this would be... what? As far as I can see, it would just make jbgusa feel better about things. Not practical things, just that we beat our chests harder and channeled our inner Pattons (you know, spouting off loudly and pointlessly). Things that don't actually advance American objectives, for as you note the idea that such a more would actually impair the Soviet mission to build a bomb is rather far-fetched.
For pretty much anywhere between 1949 - when the USSR went nuclear - and about 1987, when it was clear that Gorbachev was for real (it wasn't clear at that point that the Soviet Union would soon simply vanish), the way the Cold War ended would have been among the most optimistic scenarios diplomats and strategists imagined.
And for some people - cozy and secure in 2017 and thinking that history would be more satisfying of some poor shmucks of yesteryear had died so that America's legacy would be 'tougher' - that's just not enough.
And if "Uncle Joe" simply refused? Was US assistance to the Soviet Union so material to the Russian war effort that it would have made a significant difference and allowed Germany to hold out in the east? How would you have stopped the Russian from getting those territories given that they were already occupied by them? Another war? How many US and UK lives would that have been worth and was that a price the public was willing to pay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Fourth, we "didn't let the USSR have Eastern Europe all the way to East Germany's boundaries" the Red Army captured it during 1944 and 1945 while the war was going on. You can't "give" someone something that is already in their possession can you?
Fifth, the idea of somehow using our armed forces to drive the Red Army out of Eastern Europe is simply absurd. Americans weren't willing to turn on a former ally that fast. More importantly, American troops wanted to be discharged from the military and sent home after the war in Europe ended in May of 1945.
It is well known that we slowed our forces down when in Germany to meet the Soviet forces at Berlin. We could have moved a lot faster after German resistance collapsed subsequent to their loss at the Battle of the Bulge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
What a strange post.
That's your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
First, the last thing the USA intended to do during World War II was even let the Soviets know we were developing an atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project was so secret that President Truman found out about it only after he was sworn in as President in April of 1945. This was weeks before the war in Europe ended.
Second, we began giving assistance to the USSR in 1941 which was before the development of the bomb even began. Development of the bomb didn't begin until after experiments showed it was possible to split atoms and cause a nuclear chain reaction. This took place in 1942.
Third, even if the timing had been better than this and the USSR had made such an agreement, how would you have enforced it?
Conditioned assistance to the Soviets on their Finlandization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Sixth, you seem to not understand why we gave aid to the USSR in the first place. It was because we knew that every German soldier the Red Army killed was one that would not be alive to shoot at American soldiers on the western front. Saving Eastern Europe from communism was a minor consideration for Americans during the war indeed. I'd say it was a good deal for this country. We lost 400,000 soldiers in the war. The Soviet Union lost 20,000,000 soldiers and civilians.
There was just wasn't another logical outcome than the one that occurred.
It was also out of FDR's ideological predilections. Se didn't have to include the Soviet Union in the "United Nations." We didn't need the summits at Teheran and Yalta.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
