4 ms·

We disagree then. I consider the US government's performance during the Cold War to be more impressive than its performance during WWII. In particular, the US m

by frank2 6y ago

We disagree then. I consider the US government's performance during the Cold War to be more impressive than its performance during WWII. In particular, the US managed to avoid using nuclear weapons in anger, managed to prevent its adversary from using nuclear weapons in anger, managed to prevent its adversary from invading Western Europe and managed to break its adversary's hold on Eastern Europe. Diplomacy and soft power were more important in the Cold War than they were in WWII, which is why I feel the need to use "US government" in that last sentence rather than "US military". In particular, the US used free trade as an incentive to induce the governments of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and even mainland China to go along with US plans to stop the expansion Soviet influence. But putting aside the performance of the State Department and the other non-military parts of the US government during the Cold War, I consider the performance of its military specifically to have been good. The most important consideration during Vietnam War for example was to show Europe that the US would uphold its security guarantees even at large cost to itself in money and American lives, and the US military succeeded in that. It would have been nice for it to have saved South Vietnam from being conquered, but that was not strictly necessary to winning the Cold War. Another important consideration was for the US military to conduct the war humanely enough that the other side would not end up hating the US for generations, and the US military seems to have succeeded in that goal: these years, public opinion in Vietnam toward the US is generally positive and the Vietnamese government (even though it is still communist) is generally friendly to the US.

jessaustin 6y ago
I agree it's good that nuclear weapons haven't been used since 1945. I disagree that the actions of USA are to be credited for that. We created them in the first place, although the exigencies of WWII were probably an excuse. All of the nuclear weapons built between 1945 and 1949 were built by USA. No American then had any illusions about how terrible nuclear weapons are. If during that time we could have credibly committed to stop building nuclear weapons, we could have forged an agreement with USSR that would have made the entire planet much safer for many decades. Stalin wasn't a great humanitarian, but so much of the effort and resources he put into the USSR military was a reaction to well-earned distrust of USA's intentions. Also, he didn't have them yet! (The first ones he did get to work were obvious copies of American weapons, because why would the agencies in charge of foiling Soviet spies care more about their mission than about keeping the gravy train going?) Follow-on effects of a nuclear ban would have meant humanity as a whole would have considered such weapons beyond the pale, probably for centuries. Instead, we developed vastly more destructive fusion weapons! Of course, weapons manufacturers wanted to make money, and neither Truman nor any of his generals (including Eisenhower) were brave enough to contradict that. No politician or military officer or popular journalist has been brave enough ever since then, either. Occasionally someone like Trump comes along and halfway pretends during a campaign to oppose our endless stupid wars, but that's quickly forgotten after the election. It is worth remembering, that all of the carnage and waste of the Cold War and our later Stupid Wars, and all of the menace of nuclear fusion weapons, and all of the effects of these things that we have yet to suffer, have been imposed on humanity in order that American armaments manufacturers might thereby profit. To address Vietnam specifically, we didn't cover ourselves in glory there either. To begin, it was a colonial war started on behalf of a different colonial power. What the hell has France ever done for us, that we should help them menace other hemispheres? Lafayette wasn't all that. Also there is the fact that like most of our wars it was started based on a shameful lie, in this case the fake, never-happened Tonkin Gulf "incident". Also there were all the many atrocities. Also we intentionally spread the war to other nations who were even more innocent than the Vietnamese. Also we got our asses handed to us by rustic peasants. Not for the last time. To speak more directly of the military, Vietnam showed them to be a paper tiger, and no war since has contradicted that judgment. (I can already hear the atrocityfans' cries of "What about the invasion of Panama! That wasn't terrible!") Their fathers had been rousted out of civilian life to build a military that had never existed and beat two invincible empires. They did beat those empires, to bloody pulps. Two decades later, under a Pentagon bloated from bingeing on the cream of the most blessed economy in history and an even more bloated officer corps, their sons couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. Somehow we didn't take a long look in the mirror in 1975 and reconsider this whole idea of outspending the rest of the world, combined, on our military. We also didn't execute multiple CIA and NSA personnel for treason for tricking us into the stupid war in the first place. The joke was on us, because over the next decade and change we were tricked into spending even more on our inept military and clueless intelligence services. While USSR was failing so obviously that the Politburo selected Gorbachev to lead the old mare out behind the shed, we just had to build more nuclear and conventional weapons. I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, even though I've stated only facts. You have come to the bizarre reflections of reality you describe above through constant gaslighting from every corner, here in USA. It's sort of a small injury, when compared to the atrocities we've inflicted on others, but the injury to our public thought imposed by the military-industrial complex is one that I feel keenly. No one in public life can utter obvious truths about geopolitics in the way that anyone could have done in the 1930s, lest they lose their careers permanently. You've argued here that the USA is to be credited for preventing the use of weapons that it invented, that it has tested more than all other nations combined, and that only it has ever used! Please, reconsider this folly.

by frank2 6y ago

jessaustin 6y ago

I agree it's good that nuclear weapons haven't been used since 1945. I disagree that the actions of USA are to be credited for that. We created them in the first place, although the exigencies of WWII were probably an excuse. All of the nuclear weapons built between 1945 and 1949 were built by USA. No American then had any illusions about how terrible nuclear weapons are. If during that time we could have credibly committed to stop building nuclear weapons, we could have forged an agreement with USSR that would have made the entire planet much safer for many decades. Stalin wasn't a great humanitarian, but so much of the effort and resources he put into the USSR military was a reaction to well-earned distrust of USA's intentions. Also, he didn't have them yet! (The first ones he did get to work were obvious copies of American weapons, because why would the agencies in charge of foiling Soviet spies care more about their mission than about keeping the gravy train going?) Follow-on effects of a nuclear ban would have meant humanity as a whole would have considered such weapons beyond the pale, probably for centuries. Instead, we developed vastly more destructive fusion weapons! Of course, weapons manufacturers wanted to make money, and neither Truman nor any of his generals (including Eisenhower) were brave enough to contradict that. No politician or military officer or popular journalist has been brave enough ever since then, either. Occasionally someone like Trump comes along and halfway pretends during a campaign to oppose our endless stupid wars, but that's quickly forgotten after the election. It is worth remembering, that all of the carnage and waste of the Cold War and our later Stupid Wars, and all of the menace of nuclear fusion weapons, and all of the effects of these things that we have yet to suffer, have been imposed on humanity in order that American armaments manufacturers might thereby profit. To address Vietnam specifically, we didn't cover ourselves in glory there either. To begin, it was a colonial war started on behalf of a different colonial power. What the hell has France ever done for us, that we should help them menace other hemispheres? Lafayette wasn't all that. Also there is the fact that like most of our wars it was started based on a shameful lie, in this case the fake, never-happened Tonkin Gulf "incident". Also there were all the many atrocities. Also we intentionally spread the war to other nations who were even more innocent than the Vietnamese. Also we got our asses handed to us by rustic peasants. Not for the last time. To speak more directly of the military, Vietnam showed them to be a paper tiger, and no war since has contradicted that judgment. (I can already hear the atrocityfans' cries of "What about the invasion of Panama! That wasn't terrible!") Their fathers had been rousted out of civilian life to build a military that had never existed and beat two invincible empires. They did beat those empires, to bloody pulps. Two decades later, under a Pentagon bloated from bingeing on the cream of the most blessed economy in history and an even more bloated officer corps, their sons couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. Somehow we didn't take a long look in the mirror in 1975 and reconsider this whole idea of outspending the rest of the world, combined, on our military. We also didn't execute multiple CIA and NSA personnel for treason for tricking us into the stupid war in the first place. The joke was on us, because over the next decade and change we were tricked into spending even more on our inept military and clueless intelligence services. While USSR was failing so obviously that the Politburo selected Gorbachev to lead the old mare out behind the shed, we just had to build more nuclear and conventional weapons. I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, even though I've stated only facts. You have come to the bizarre reflections of reality you describe above through constant gaslighting from every corner, here in USA. It's sort of a small injury, when compared to the atrocities we've inflicted on others, but the injury to our public thought imposed by the military-industrial complex is one that I feel keenly. No one in public life can utter obvious truths about geopolitics in the way that anyone could have done in the 1930s, lest they lose their careers permanently. You've argued here that the USA is to be credited for preventing the use of weapons that it invented, that it has tested more than all other nations combined, and that only it has ever used! Please, reconsider this folly.