6 ms·

The Soviet regime under Stalin was terrible, but it was probably a good thing for the world that they managed to come up with an atomic bomb as quickly as they

The Soviet regime under Stalin was terrible, but it was probably a good thing for the world that they managed to come up with an atomic bomb as quickly as they did. A twentieth century dominated by an American empire as the sole nuclear power is a terrifying thing to contemplate.

flyinglizard 7y ago
Do you think the hundreds of millions who lived under communism and Soviet oppression would agree?
- underdown 7y ago
  Or the 25-50m people killed by Mao?
- FpUser 7y ago
  Why of course they would very much prefer to burn under democratic nuclear sunshine instead.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Why would they have to?
    - pinkfoot 7y ago
      Er, because the USA was quite happy to start a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis regardless of what the rest of us on the plant thought. All because of missiles in Cuba - when the USA quite happily had similar weapons in Turkey.
      - Iv 7y ago
        Why would there have been a missile crisis in Cuba if USSR was not a nuclear power?
        pinkfoot 7y ago
        Of course not, but it doesn't change the fact that the USA unilateraly committed itself to ending the entire planet if they didn't get what they wanted. The USSR were the adults in that conflict. So, yeah - the rest of us consider it entirely likely that Democracy will nuke us.
        Iv 7y ago
        If you have credible source to this version of the Cuban missiles crisis, I'd be interested to hear about that. I have seen insanity on both sides but from reading both US and USSR propaganda, the latter was even less rooted in fact than the American one.
        pinkfoot 7y ago
        1. the planet came within a stray bear of a nuclear war [1] 2. the USSR backed-down and withdrew from Cuba 3. the USA kept their nuclear weapons in Turkey [2]. https://lacrossetribune.com/news/false-alarm-how-a-bear-nearly-started-a-nuclear-war/article_bc6f4da6-a89c-5d7d-bf0a-e41150753b62.html https://lacrossetribune.com/news/false-alarm-how-a-bear-near... [1] https://turkeywonk.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/turkeys-nuclear-missiles-an-important-player-in-the-cuban-missile-crisis/ https://turkeywonk.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/turkeys-nuclear-... [2]
        sam_lowry_ 7y ago
        And since then, moved them even closer.
        Iv 7y ago
        None of this comes to validate the opinion that "USA unilaterally committed itself to ending the entire planet if they didn't get what they wanted." and that "The USSR were the adults in that conflict". The first link is about a near miss. There were a dozen of these on both sides during the Cold war. The second link is about the equivalence USSR saw between missiles in Turkey and missiles in Cuba. This is not about being adults in the room. This is about Russia failing to being stealthy enough in Cuba. Seriously. They would have done it if they could have gotten away with. And US would have simply bombed Cuba with conventional weapons. Something neither country wanted.
    - FpUser 7y ago
      The US has quite proven itself at starting wars without hesitation to enforce their version of the world order. And lacking a restraint like MAD I think there would be a good chance of them dropping nukes here and there, USSR being prime target.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  Wow, you didn't even read the first sentence eh?
tgv 7y ago
I infer you didn't experience the Cold War.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  I infer you've never lived in one of America's colonial vassal states. Both empires probably had to treat their subject populations a bit better in the presence of a geopolitical alternative.
  - tgv 7y ago
    > Both empires probably had to treat their subject populations a bit better in the presence of a geopolitical alternative. That's not quite sane: you're (1) placing this as an alternative to a full out nuclear war, and (2) placing the US' and the USSR's influence at equal footing.
- jbay808 7y ago
  I infer you didn't experience the hot war that would have been, if the US had a nuclear monopoly! Curtis LeMay was seriously pushing for using the US nuclear arsenal on multiple occasions, including against Moscow and in Vietnam. He pushed for this even knowing that there was a near certainty of nuclear retaliation. How influential do you think his voice would have been without MAD?
  - tgv 7y ago
    > would have been Why? I guess the Vietnamese communists would have surrendered to the US and the country would have lived under its influence instead of the Soviets', and that's assuming Ho Chi Min would have received enough support in the first place. There's no reason to assume the US would have nuked at someone's whim. BTW, the French and the Brits also have their nuclear arsenal. There would not have been a "monopoly".
    - jbay808 7y ago
      This isn't just "someone's whim", but the Air Force chief of staff, the guy entrusted with the authority to make such recommendations. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay > Towards this aim, LeMay delivered the first SAC Emergency War Plan in March 1949 which called for dropping 133 atomic bombs on 70 cities in the USSR within 30 days. [...] Air power strategists called this type of pre-emptive strike "killing a nation". However, the Harmon committee released their unanimous report two months later stating such an attack would not end a war with the Soviets and their industry would quickly recover. This committee had been specifically created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to study the effects of a massive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, within weeks, an ad hoc Joint Chiefs committee recommended tripling America's nuclear arsenal, and Chief of Staff Vandenberg called for enough bombs to attack 220 targets, up from the previous 70. Note that March 1949 was 5 months before the USSR's first atomic bomb test. It's not a leap to suggest that if the USSR didn't obtain nuclear weapons in 1949, the US would have shown much less restraint than they did. And "restraint" is already not the first word that comes to mind to describe American foreign policy in the 20th century. (As for France and the UK, I don't think the US president would have worried about the UK nuking Washington in retaliation for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR).
Iv 7y ago
As someone who very often criticize US's international decisions, I tend to disagree. I think that the US-USSR opposition radicalized USA, fed its nationalism and its paranoia and led it to develop an empire, something that is simply not in its culture (when you compare to typical colonial empires)
- voldacar 7y ago
  Wasn't the united states already developing an empire long before the cold war? things like the philippines and hawaii come to mind
  - Iv 7y ago
    It was a short period and basically stopped after WWII. They could have occupied Japan and a thousand island if they wanted to and did not (now please just give state status to Puerto Rico) USA is more interested in free trade than in military conquest. Something I dare say, that is totally unlike USSR. Being an "ally" of USSR meant something totally different than being an ally of USA.
    - daseiner1 7y ago
      i’m strongly convinced, but would genuinely love a strong counterargument, that the single clearest US foreign policy priority since WW2 has been the establishment of free markets. My perception is that we are supremely confident that we can outcompete anyone, anywhere. We just want a market where we’re free to go head-to-head
      - ethelward 7y ago
        The US want ‶free″ markets, but with bonus if they are using dollars, have no problem taking bribes from US firms, respect US sanctions and give a few oh-so-subtle advantages to US firms there and there. Note that I don't blame them, any world power would do the same.
        7y ago

flyinglizard 7y ago

Do you think the hundreds of millions who lived under communism and Soviet oppression would agree?

underdown 7y ago
Or the 25-50m people killed by Mao?
FpUser 7y ago
Why of course they would very much prefer to burn under democratic nuclear sunshine instead.
- Iv 7y ago
  Why would they have to?
  - pinkfoot 7y ago
    Er, because the USA was quite happy to start a nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis regardless of what the rest of us on the plant thought. All because of missiles in Cuba - when the USA quite happily had similar weapons in Turkey.
    - Iv 7y ago
      Why would there have been a missile crisis in Cuba if USSR was not a nuclear power?
      - pinkfoot 7y ago
        Of course not, but it doesn't change the fact that the USA unilateraly committed itself to ending the entire planet if they didn't get what they wanted. The USSR were the adults in that conflict. So, yeah - the rest of us consider it entirely likely that Democracy will nuke us.
        Iv 7y ago
        If you have credible source to this version of the Cuban missiles crisis, I'd be interested to hear about that. I have seen insanity on both sides but from reading both US and USSR propaganda, the latter was even less rooted in fact than the American one.
        pinkfoot 7y ago
        1. the planet came within a stray bear of a nuclear war [1] 2. the USSR backed-down and withdrew from Cuba 3. the USA kept their nuclear weapons in Turkey [2]. https://lacrossetribune.com/news/false-alarm-how-a-bear-nearly-started-a-nuclear-war/article_bc6f4da6-a89c-5d7d-bf0a-e41150753b62.html https://lacrossetribune.com/news/false-alarm-how-a-bear-near... [1] https://turkeywonk.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/turkeys-nuclear-missiles-an-important-player-in-the-cuban-missile-crisis/ https://turkeywonk.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/turkeys-nuclear-... [2]
        sam_lowry_ 7y ago
        And since then, moved them even closer.
        Iv 7y ago
        None of this comes to validate the opinion that "USA unilaterally committed itself to ending the entire planet if they didn't get what they wanted." and that "The USSR were the adults in that conflict". The first link is about a near miss. There were a dozen of these on both sides during the Cold war. The second link is about the equivalence USSR saw between missiles in Turkey and missiles in Cuba. This is not about being adults in the room. This is about Russia failing to being stealthy enough in Cuba. Seriously. They would have done it if they could have gotten away with. And US would have simply bombed Cuba with conventional weapons. Something neither country wanted.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    The US has quite proven itself at starting wars without hesitation to enforce their version of the world order. And lacking a restraint like MAD I think there would be a good chance of them dropping nukes here and there, USSR being prime target.
black_puppydog 7y ago
Wow, you didn't even read the first sentence eh?

tgv 7y ago

I infer you didn't experience the Cold War.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
I infer you've never lived in one of America's colonial vassal states. Both empires probably had to treat their subject populations a bit better in the presence of a geopolitical alternative.
- tgv 7y ago
  > Both empires probably had to treat their subject populations a bit better in the presence of a geopolitical alternative. That's not quite sane: you're (1) placing this as an alternative to a full out nuclear war, and (2) placing the US' and the USSR's influence at equal footing.
jbay808 7y ago
I infer you didn't experience the hot war that would have been, if the US had a nuclear monopoly! Curtis LeMay was seriously pushing for using the US nuclear arsenal on multiple occasions, including against Moscow and in Vietnam. He pushed for this even knowing that there was a near certainty of nuclear retaliation. How influential do you think his voice would have been without MAD?
- tgv 7y ago
  > would have been Why? I guess the Vietnamese communists would have surrendered to the US and the country would have lived under its influence instead of the Soviets', and that's assuming Ho Chi Min would have received enough support in the first place. There's no reason to assume the US would have nuked at someone's whim. BTW, the French and the Brits also have their nuclear arsenal. There would not have been a "monopoly".
  - jbay808 7y ago
    This isn't just "someone's whim", but the Air Force chief of staff, the guy entrusted with the authority to make such recommendations. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay > Towards this aim, LeMay delivered the first SAC Emergency War Plan in March 1949 which called for dropping 133 atomic bombs on 70 cities in the USSR within 30 days. [...] Air power strategists called this type of pre-emptive strike "killing a nation". However, the Harmon committee released their unanimous report two months later stating such an attack would not end a war with the Soviets and their industry would quickly recover. This committee had been specifically created by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to study the effects of a massive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, within weeks, an ad hoc Joint Chiefs committee recommended tripling America's nuclear arsenal, and Chief of Staff Vandenberg called for enough bombs to attack 220 targets, up from the previous 70. Note that March 1949 was 5 months before the USSR's first atomic bomb test. It's not a leap to suggest that if the USSR didn't obtain nuclear weapons in 1949, the US would have shown much less restraint than they did. And "restraint" is already not the first word that comes to mind to describe American foreign policy in the 20th century. (As for France and the UK, I don't think the US president would have worried about the UK nuking Washington in retaliation for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the USSR).

Iv 7y ago

As someone who very often criticize US's international decisions, I tend to disagree. I think that the US-USSR opposition radicalized USA, fed its nationalism and its paranoia and led it to develop an empire, something that is simply not in its culture (when you compare to typical colonial empires)

voldacar 7y ago
Wasn't the united states already developing an empire long before the cold war? things like the philippines and hawaii come to mind
- Iv 7y ago
  It was a short period and basically stopped after WWII. They could have occupied Japan and a thousand island if they wanted to and did not (now please just give state status to Puerto Rico) USA is more interested in free trade than in military conquest. Something I dare say, that is totally unlike USSR. Being an "ally" of USSR meant something totally different than being an ally of USA.
  - daseiner1 7y ago
    i’m strongly convinced, but would genuinely love a strong counterargument, that the single clearest US foreign policy priority since WW2 has been the establishment of free markets. My perception is that we are supremely confident that we can outcompete anyone, anywhere. We just want a market where we’re free to go head-to-head
    - ethelward 7y ago
      The US want ‶free″ markets, but with bonus if they are using dollars, have no problem taking bribes from US firms, respect US sanctions and give a few oh-so-subtle advantages to US firms there and there. Note that I don't blame them, any world power would do the same.
      - 7y ago