Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

[Whoha]

Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

I'll pull this for the time being

[lethe]

I think it's pretty safe to say this: For a little over 40 years both the US and the Soviets had a series of leaders with severe paranoid delusions and a macho complex.

None of them were saints. The world probably came to the brink of nuclear war more times than it's good for the stomach to contemplate. But we got through it.

The world today is a better place than it's ever been. It's still not an especially good place, but it's definitely better.

[Provost Harrison]

Hmmm, it's also reassuring that people like McArthur didn't have more say than they did...US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy. Hell, they built enough to bring the USSR to it's knees, fortunately the USSR managed to produce it's own deterrant. You may refer to them as the evil empire...the US was the instigator and forced their hand in the matter, especially considering the devastation after WWII...it is hardly surprising their economy did collapse eventually. It certainly must have been robust to withstand the Nazis and then Stalin's terror.

[Capt Dizle]

In what way can Russia or the Soviet Union be blamed for the start of the first or second world war? Why should anyone have been concerned that the Soviet Union would start another world wide conflict?

The second world war effectively destroyed the Imperial intentions of England, France, Japan and Germany and left the United States and the Soviet Union with empires in hand.

There really was no reason for another wide war. The biggest threat of that now would come in the guise of the EU, after all, these are the people that caused all the trouble in the first place.

[Inverse Icarus]

to address the original question: yes. nukes were a deterrent to a major attack (nuclear or conventional) on either side. the "small wars" fought between puppets of either regime could have been much worse than they were, as horrible as that might be to say (my apologies to any Vietnam / Korea vets on the forums).

to address the subtle threadjack, america had the upper hand in the beginning, and rode it until the end. the soviets were tripping over themselves to play catch up, to simply even out the playing field. their economy eventually collapsed, as any nations' would have.

[Kuciwalker]

US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy.

Duh. We invented them.

[GePap]

IN terms of having some sort of justification for their paranoia, the Soviets had more justification than the US. They did take it too far though.

In a world without nukes, I doubt the arms race in conventional weapons would have been as extensive. There might have been local wars, but no world wars for a long time anyway.

[Sava]

to address the subtle threadjack, america had the upper hand in the beginning, and rode it until the end. the soviets were tripping over themselves to play catch up, to simply even out the playing field. their economy eventually collapsed, as any nations' would have.

the US was behind for a long time... after Strategic Air Command was created, the US caught up to and surpassed the Soviets. But Che is correct.

And Ned, the US had missiles in Turkey long before the Soviets went to Cuba.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
the US was behind for a long time... after Strategic Air Command was created, the US caught up to and surpassed the Soviets. But Che is correct.

And Ned, the US had missiles in Turkey long before the Soviets went to Cuba.

The US was never behind technologically to the soviets. The US may have been behind numerically for the entire cold war, but in tech we were always at least equal.

So i really don;t understand your assertion at all.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
The US was never behind technologically to the soviets. The US may have been behind numerically for the entire cold war, but in tech we were always at least equal.

are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's.

So i really don;t understand your assertion at all.

there's always books you could read.

[Kuciwalker]

Not they're MILITARY rocket technology, not really

[molly bloom]

Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

Originally posted by Ned


I love living in the Nedaverse which, translated, is anytime prior to the revision of history by communist history professors like Che.

Time to talk Turkey, Ned, or 'Are you feeling a warm glow, Ivan?'

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/html/JupiterMissiles-Pg1.htm

Consider Ned, the Soviet Union's bad relations with its fellow communist state China- having a possible belligerent on your border the size of China, with whom you have had several border clashes and strong ideological differences, would be like the United States having an armed and hostile Canada with a much more sizeable population and armed forces, glowering at you across Niagara Falls and near Boeing's factories in Washington State.

Then of course there were non-friendly countries such as Pakistan, Iran, dubious neutrals such as Sweden and Finland and Afghanistan (no love lost there), NATO members such as Norway and Turkey, a hostile Japan (Airstrip Two to the U.K.'s Airstrip One) restive Warsaw Pact members such as Hungary and Poland and the picture becomes somewhat less roseate for Red Russia
(couldn't resist the alliteration).

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by skywalker

US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy.

Duh. We invented them.

And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

[Deity Dude]

I'm not even gonna comment on the BS interpretation of history and propaganda that Che put forth, and put it straight and simple.

Like it or not, Nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe.

On a side note, what do you think this world would look like if Russia or Japan or Germany or China etc etc etc had a monopoly on Nuclear Weapons in the 1945-50 era.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

you're a lying commie traitor liberal pinko lefty!#$^@#$&^@#$