Ok, they may have had a horribly inefficient system and may have denied their people basic rights, but the fact remains that the world was more evenly balanced when they were around. The US and USSR never once militarily attacked each other as they knew that it would lead to their mutual extermination. So the peace was kept. Further, the ideological tussle between Communism and Capitalism was so overwhelming that it kept other ideological forces like militant Islam under check.

I feel that the world was a tad safer in those times than now.

What do you think?

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): I feel that the world was a tad safer in those times than now.

Do you want them back?

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 1): Do you want them back?

I didn't say that. I only voiced my opinion about the general state of the world back then.

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): Further, the ideological tussle between Communism and Capitalism was so overwhelming that it kept other ideological forces like militant Islam under check.

Just wait for China, then.   Yes, I know there not 'as' 'communist' but you get the point.

JL

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): I feel that the world was a tad safer in those times than now.

Agreed. Either side was too afraid to lob the first nuke and they both knew that it meant extermination for the planet, as you mentioned.

I'd rather have a nuke happy USSR then what is happening with the middle-east and Muslims right now, e.i. OBL.

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 4): Agreed. Either side was too afraid to lob the first nuke and they both knew that it meant extermination for the planet, as you mentioned.

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 4): I'd rather have a nuke happy USSR then what is happening with the middle-east and Muslims right now, e.i. OBL.

I agree but let's not forget that they were pretty close to begin a nuclear war. Ok, now we live with the fear of sick assholes like OBL, but back then we lived with constant fear as well. The difference is that now we are scared that OBL might get a nuke and use it, back then we knew they had the nukes and that they could use it whenever they wanted. If OBL used a WMD today, it would be the only WMD he would have, the USSR had the capability of wiping half the US off the face of the earth, not just 1 or 2 cities.

So yes, looking back in retrospective, the world seemed safer back then, but I'm pretty sure there was the same amount of fear.
If OBL or anyone else uses nukes, in 50 years time we will look back and say that everything was not so bad. Hopefully this will be the case!

regards  

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 5): So yes, looking back in retrospective, the world seemed safer back then, but I'm pretty sure there was the same amount of fear.

When we get to the point where schoolkids have to practice "duck and cover" routines and people begin building bomb shelters again, I'll start to worry, a bit.

(A friend just bought a house built circa-1960, and the bomb shelter was listed as a "spacious wine cellar".)  

Quoting Jean Leloup (Reply 3): Yes, I know there not 'as' 'communist' but you get the point.

No, I believe they are more restrictive and more dangerous than the USSR . . . personal opinion of course.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 5): The difference is that now we are scared that OBL might get a nuke and use it, back then we knew they had the nukes and that they could use it whenever they wanted

And they were predictable . . . . OBL and company are not.

Since the fall of the USSR, the world has gotten much more dangerous . . . on many levels . . . whereas previously it was more or less "us" and "them" . . . it's now "us" and all of them . . . problem is, we're not sure exactly who "all of them" is.

There is an interesting reading by John Mearsheimer written around '90 entitled 'Why we will soon miss the Cold War'. It mostly talks about the security and stability that a world of bipolar superpowers offers.

He feared that this would lead to instability in Europe and the development of multipolarity, which has historically led to war in Europe. Alliances would shift, intentions would be unclear where there is no balance of power. He predicted a failed or ineffective EU and the outbreak of ethnic and nationalistic conflits.

One of the more controversial views of his is encouragement of nuclear proliferation among many states to encourage stabilization.

[Edited 2006-02-25 02:43:24]

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): What If The Ussr Still Existed...

Well the U.S. would have a 600 ship Navy, the Air Farce would have a $hit load of F-22s,B-2s and more.

And the world would have less wars going on.

Dan in Jupiter

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 7): Since the fall of the USSR, the world has gotten much more dangerous . . . on many levels . . . whereas previously it was more or less "us" and "them" . . . it's now "us" and all of them . . . problem is, we're not sure exactly who "all of them" is.

Hey ANC, we seem to be meeting in many threads  

I see your point, especially regarding not knowing who "all of them" is. However, IMHO we are now living in a state of paranoia similar to the one there was during the Cold War. You are right in implying that back then, the "enemy" was a clear enemy, meaning everyone know who it was, where it was, and what it had in their hands to destroy us. Today it is a bit different, yet the fear that it provides is the same. Back in the 60's and 70's especially, the world was more or less expecting a nuclear war to start any minute because the world in fact knew that there were two superpowers with enough weapons to destroy everything. Although I am not implying that were safer today than back then, today we don't know that. There are many rumours yet very few facts. We think that if OBL could, he would nuke a major western city. We don't know that as a fact since we are not even sure he has a nuclear weapon in his hands as we speak. It's kind of like expecting something without really knowing what to expect, while during the cold war you knew what to expect, and we lived our lives in fear of that expectation, and that fear was in fact a deterrant.

As i mentioned earlier, we won't know if today is more dangerous than it was 30 years ago until another 30 years go by and then look back and really see what happened.
regards  

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10): , IMHO we are now living in a state of paranoia similar to the one there was during the Cold War.

Very much agree . . .

And you point out here . . .

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10): You are right in implying that back then, the "enemy" was a clear enemy, meaning everyone know who it was, where it was, and what it had in their hands to destroy us. Today it is a bit different, yet the fear that it provides is the same.

. . . we know the "bad guy" was the commie, the Russians. Much 'easier' then than now . . . . so to speak.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10): Although I am not implying that were safer today than back then, today we don't know that. There are many rumours yet very few facts.

Which is why I think the world is much more volatile than it was 20 years ago. I really think at the fall of the USSR, the world got more dangerous, exponentially, over night.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10): It's kind of like expecting something without really knowing what to expect, while during the cold war you knew what to expect, and we lived our lives in fear of that expectation, and that fear was in fact a deterrant.

Exactly, and now - since we don't know what to expect or from where - we are more 'paranoid' (I hate to use that term on A-Net), perhaps more cautious, and certainly more aware. In the time of the USSR, "the big attack" was going to come from them. Now, if we have a "big attack" I'm sure we don't know from where it is coming.

It might be a good time to live in the southern hemisphere my friend - you folk down there don't piss off too many people!   

 

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 10): As i mentioned earlier, we won't know if today is more dangerous than it was 30 years ago until another 30 years go by and then look back and really see what happened.

Good point.



[Edited 2006-02-25 05:27:16]

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 11): Which is why I think the world is much more volatile than it was 20 years ago.

I could not agree more, yet I don't think that it changes the level of fear. The biggest difference is that before we were scared of the Kremlin, now as you correctly point out, we don't know exactly who we are scared of, but the fact is no matter what or who, we were scared back then, and we are scared now.
Is the world potentially under a bigger htreat? IMHO no, because I don't think any terrorist today has the destructive capability that the USSR has. Now, if we were to find out that for example Al Qaeda has a massive nuclear arsenal, the with no doubt I would agree that today is 10 times more dangerous than back then, becuase terrorists will not hesitate to use their full destructive power, while the USSR was aware that if they attacked, the response on them would have been as destructive.
I guess all we can do is hope and pray that terrorist groups will never lay their hands on a real nuclear (or biological) weapon.
We can argue and probably disagree about the methods used to prevent this (getting rid of Saddam, threatening Iran, etc.), but we are all on the same page in that we don't want these guys to be able to anihilate us

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 12): We can argue and probably disagree about the methods used to prevent this (getting rid of Saddam, threatening Iran, etc.), but we are all on the same page in that we don't want these guys to be able to anihilate us

Agreed . . .

What I'm concerned about is that I'm not so sure 'the terrorists' - whom ever they are - don't already possess nuclear WMDs. That's more unsettling to me than the former USSR.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 12): Is the world potentially under a bigger htreat? IMHO no, because I don't think any terrorist today has the destructive capability that the USSR has.

Agreed again - not as large a threat as certainly the USSR had the ability to wipe up the northern hemisphere.

I do think we have many smaller threats however . . . and collectively they could do much damage, not as much as the former USSR, but enough to create havoc and threaten the existence of everything north of equator . . .

Why is it the southern hemisphere get spared in this deal?   

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter):

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6): (A friend just bought a house built circa-1960, and the bomb shelter was listed as a "spacious wine cellar".)

If anything did happen, at least your friend would be too plastered to know what was going on!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): What I'm concerned about is that I'm not so sure 'the terrorists' - whom ever they are - don't already possess nuclear WMDs. That's more unsettling to me than the former USSR.

Let's all hope they don't!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 13): Why is it the southern hemisphere get spared in this deal?

Maybe cause no one cares about us too much, or maybe cause not everyone knows there is a southern hemisphere   lol

I'm off to sleep now ... it's been a really long week! Talk more tomorrow.
take care

regards  

Actually in a massive nuclear war, Argentina, Chile (as they are the farthest south), but also New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa would be the only livable places in the world. There would still be radiation, but with adequate measures life could continue.

Over 70% of such a nuclear fallout would ring the northern hemisphere, because of the wind patterns which do not flow from northern hemisphere to south or viceversa... 15% would fall on the tropical northern hemisphere, 10% on the tropical southern hemisphere, but only 5% on the southern hemisphere south of the tropics.

So yes, there is no threat against the Southern Hemisphere, and if terrorists get a nuke, they will not be using it south of the Equator.

I don't know if any of you have actual library cards, and read real hardcover books or not, but here is a NON-FICTION work that might answer the questions posed by this thread.

Red Star Rogue – by Kenneth Sewell and Clint Richmond

Did Russia try a sneak nuclear attack on Pearl Harbor in 1968 ?


On the night of March 7,1968, K-129 : a “Golf class” diesel-electric submarine, armed with three nuclear missiles, and two nuclear torpedos , surfaced quietly in the darkness at Latitude 24 degrees North; 163 degrees West – a mere 350 miles from the US Naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.


The sub was hundreds of miles away from its assigned patrol area, had not checked in with Soviet naval headquarters for almost a week , but had aroused no official curiosity : a circumstance that would itself be viewed as extremely curious . Russian submarine crews were rigidly disciplined ,almost fanatically loyal , and quite unlikely to go off on a “free lance” mission – especially with a KGB zampolit (Political Officer) aboard.


The location was in “direct line” with the Chinese submarine bases.
The procedure of launching from a fixed navigational point was consistent with Chinese launch doctrine; as was surfacing in order to launch missiles. The fissile material in the missiles and torpedos was of Chinese manufacture.


The authors believe a small group of Stalinist holdovers in the Kremlin and the KGB – led by Mikhail Suslov : a shadowy figure who had been Stalin’s blood-stained right hand, and Yuri Andropov: a Suslov protégé, who was head of the KGB, orchestrated this attack in order to bring about a nuclear exchange between the United States and China.


The United States , already bogged down in the Vietnam conflict , would have been substantially weakened. China would have been devastated , and an easy conquest when Russian troops (already poised on the border) rolled in “to restore order.”


What the plotters did not know – according to the authors – was that Russia had seen the wisdom of accepting a top secret offer from President Eisenhower of fail safe devices : little bombs that could be built right into a nuclear warhead , and that would destroy the warhead –and anything else nearby-if an unauthorized launch was attempted.


According to the authors , a rogue crew –probably highly trained KGB Spetsnaz troops assigned to KGB’s Executive Action Department - aboard the K-129 attempted to launch one of the 1 megaton missiles at Pearl Harbor ; but perished in the attempt ,when the failsafe blew the warhead apart, and exploded a second missile still in its tube. The combined explosions blew the bottom out of the boat, and sent her to the bottom.


There was a second thing the plotters did not know: US sub tracking capabilities were light years beyond anything envisioned by the Soviets,and K-129 had been under more-or-less continuous remote surveillance since it left its home base in Avachinskaya Bay. It had been tracked and identified by underwater SOSUS arrays, kept under watch by satellites, and pinpointed by its one micro-burst transmission.


There was no way the United States – which even had a photographic record of its exploding missile tubes – would have mistaken K-129 for a Chinese boat.


Had the attack on Pearl Harbor succeeded , approximately 500,000 Americans would have died. Pacific fleet headquarters would have been vaporized – and – given the information the US had at its disposal, the retaliation against the USSR would have plunged the two nations into no-holds-barred nuclear war.


How the United States gathered evidence about this event, and how it used the evidence make for some very interesting reading : If the authors are correct, our view of Cold War history – and the role some of our political leaders played – are overdue for significant revision .


Whatever your political education and orientation , I think you will be in for some unsettling surprises when you read “Red Star Rogue” !

At the time of the cold war we knew who the enemy was. We knew they could destroy the planet a few times over too. At the same time, the soviets knew we could destroy the planet a few times over as well. So everyone was very carefull not to step on anyones toes. As long as the other party was left in peace, everyone would live. And when in doubt, dial the hotline to the kremlin/white house.

So flash forward to today. Who is the threat? North Korea? Radical terrorists? Iran? Sure none of those parties will be able to destroy the world a few times over, but a nuke on New York or London will be pretty nasty as well. And with the break up of the soviet union god only knows where the nukes are.

In the past we had one large enemy with a lot of weapons, that was rather unwilling to us them. Nowadays we have a lot of tiny enemies that is willing to use any weapon it can lay it hands on. If they get their hands on nukes, we are in serious problems. And nowadays there is no hotline to... well... to whom? A hotline to cave #1 in Afghanistan?

On top of that you got automated systems in the former USSR that require mayor overhauls. A Norwegian test rocket nearly caused the launch of retaliatory nukes from Russia. The Russian radar system misinterpreted the launch as a hostile attack.

Also, the thread of wars is made all the more likely. I wonder if the USA would have gone to war with Iraq had there been a possibility for USSR intervention. The former Yugoslavia would not have disintegrated. etc

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 18): Also, the thread of wars is made all the more likely.

But not on a global scale as it would have been between the US/UK/NATO and the USSR. That would have left the world, literally, a wasteland save for a few extremities in the Southern hemisphere . . .

I could live there, like being way far north like I am now, except no Northern Lights and no Big Dipper. I can settle for the Australis Borealis and the Southern Cross . . . I've seen them too . . .

But I digress.

The threat today is as prevelant as it was twenty years ago - but on a much wider scale. And I agree . . . no one knows for sure from where the next show will fall . . . challenging times we live in . . . hopefully, by the time my daughter is old enough to appreciate it, another 10 years or so, things will settle a bit. . . . .

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19): I could live there, like being way far north like I am now, except no Northern Lights and no Big Dipper. I can settle for the Australis Borealis and the Southern Cross . . . I've seen them too . . .

I'm actually being serious in suggesting Adelaide in Australia, The lower lakes region of Chile, or the southern Coast of South Africa if you need to relocate. They are really beautiful areas. Haven't been to them but I know of people that have and nice... The waves in the southern African coast are special.

Quoting Derico (Reply 20): Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 19): I could live there, like being way far north like I am now, except no Northern Lights and no Big Dipper. I can settle for the Australis Borealis and the Southern Cross . . . I've seen them too . . . I'm actually being serious in suggesting Adelaide in Australia, The lower lakes region of Chile, or the southern Coast of South Africa if you need to relocate. They are really beautiful areas.

I've been to Adelaide, but never to South Africa or Chile.

And it would be easy to live in Oz. . . and from what I can tell Argentina and Uruguay as well . . . beautiful places . . . I have only visited South America in an official capacity. . . I should make a trip for pleasure. Buenos Aries and Rio de Janiero fascinate me . . . just haven't gotten there yet. . .

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Thread starter): Ok, they may have had a horribly inefficient system and may have denied their people basic rights, but the fact remains that the world was more evenly balanced when they were around. The US and USSR never once militarily attacked each other as they knew that it would lead to their mutual extermination. So the peace was kept. Further, the ideological tussle between Communism and Capitalism was so overwhelming that it kept other ideological forces like militant Islam under check. I feel that the world was a tad safer in those times than now.

A few points to differ:

1) Firstly, the cold war brought on a lot of behind-the-scenes nonsense form both sides, where the US was forced to interfere with the internal workings of other countries because the USSR was doing exactly the same thing, and that often meant that the west allied itself with anyone strong enough to stand up to Soviet interests, like Pinochet or Mobutu, who weren't exactly choir boys themselves.

2) I'm not so sure that a continued cold war would have held in check fundementalist Islam. That whole movement kicked off in the late 70s, and really got going in 1979 with the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shortly after. It's been growing ever since. I would guess that if the USSR were around today, they would have the same problems with the fundies that the US has now. Islamic fundementalists hated the USSR as godless heathens.

One thing is for sure, the olympics would be a hell of a lot more interesting

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22): Islamic fundementalists hated the USSR as godless heathens.

Yes, well. Say what you will, but the KGB's solution to Muslims taking hostages was simple. If a Russian got taken hostage, the KGB would start disappearing terrorists until the Russian showed up again.