3 ms·

I think it's naive to assume that the Soviets learned of nuclear bombs once they were dropped in Japan. It's well documented that they knew and were doing resea

I think it's naive to assume that the Soviets learned of nuclear bombs once they were dropped in Japan. It's well documented that they knew and were doing research way before that. If you're developing it, somebody you don't want is always going to know. > Remember guys, the nucler detente in Europe was not something given until eighties Eh? France had their independently developed nukes in the 60s. This comment also boldly assumes that the Soviets had a stronger urge to march with tanks into Europe than the U.S. has to march into Russia, which is not a given. But putting all that aside, assuming the U.S. were able to keep it secret, what makes you think that that's necessarily a good thing? Do you really naively assume that all the U.S. cares about are 'liberal values'? The U.S. does not enjoy the universal 'good guys' reputation in many places around the world, for solid reasons. So to me, it seems far better that MAD exists, it keeps everyone from becoming too drunk with power.

baybal2 8y ago
Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value And remember, Soviets gave no shit about the nuke even after first hydrogen bomb test, thinking of it as an impractical weapon. Were not its use in war, Soviet nuclear project could've ended just being a stack of documents on the shelf without political backing, and them not fully realising how to deal with being attacked themselves. Imagine yourself in such a situation: You encounter robbers on the street, they demand money. You know for sure that you will either be robbed and killed after you give money, or be killed and then robbed if you don't give them money and try defending yourself. Now, will you threaten them retaliation from the start, brandishing your weapon, or hide the weapon and play an easy victim until the very last moment, to try your chance in a surprise attack when they let their guard down?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Pushing the analogy, if you do the latter, you're liable to get hurt or die. You have to wait your turn, but you might not get one. Show and reputation are better weapons.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  > Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value it was never a secret wrt the ussr. the manhattan project was riddled with communist spies.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    Even Germany had an inkling of what was going on. The research papers before the war were talking about possibilities like bombs, and then there was suddenly radio silence on the issue. The physicists left in the Axis understood what that meant
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Detente is the easing of position, a reduction in tension. Reagan's arms reduction - START - was indeed early 80s, and did succeed in rowing back some of the tension in Europe. Star Wars almost immediately threw a spanner in those works. Fall of the Berlin wall and the rest of the Soviet bloc disintegration - set in chain partly thanks to the cratered oil price - achieved far more. Keeping nuclear secret was unlikely - the capability was progressing in the UK - albeit merged (more like taken over, but I digress) with the US part way, Germany, Russia and the US. MAD is hugely overrated - there's been far too many politicians and generals believing they can win a nuclear exchange. MAD hopefully delays things long enough for someone to have second thoughts.

baybal2 8y ago

Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value And remember, Soviets gave no shit about the nuke even after first hydrogen bomb test, thinking of it as an impractical weapon. Were not its use in war, Soviet nuclear project could've ended just being a stack of documents on the shelf without political backing, and them not fully realising how to deal with being attacked themselves. Imagine yourself in such a situation: You encounter robbers on the street, they demand money. You know for sure that you will either be robbed and killed after you give money, or be killed and then robbed if you don't give them money and try defending yourself. Now, will you threaten them retaliation from the start, brandishing your weapon, or hide the weapon and play an easy victim until the very last moment, to try your chance in a surprise attack when they let their guard down?

AstralStorm 8y ago
Pushing the analogy, if you do the latter, you're liable to get hurt or die. You have to wait your turn, but you might not get one. Show and reputation are better weapons.
nyolfen 8y ago
> Those arguments are very easy to parry. Even in the scenarios where Soviets got a bomb, I believe keeping it secret would've been of great military value it was never a secret wrt the ussr. the manhattan project was riddled with communist spies.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  Even Germany had an inkling of what was going on. The research papers before the war were talking about possibilities like bombs, and then there was suddenly radio silence on the issue. The physicists left in the Axis understood what that meant

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Detente is the easing of position, a reduction in tension. Reagan's arms reduction - START - was indeed early 80s, and did succeed in rowing back some of the tension in Europe. Star Wars almost immediately threw a spanner in those works. Fall of the Berlin wall and the rest of the Soviet bloc disintegration - set in chain partly thanks to the cratered oil price - achieved far more. Keeping nuclear secret was unlikely - the capability was progressing in the UK - albeit merged (more like taken over, but I digress) with the US part way, Germany, Russia and the US. MAD is hugely overrated - there's been far too many politicians and generals believing they can win a nuclear exchange. MAD hopefully delays things long enough for someone to have second thoughts.