7 ms·

It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine s

by eggy 4y ago

It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?).

sidewndr46 4y ago
Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded. In the backstory for the movie it wasn't just the Cubans. The Russians directly led it, and also Mexico went Communist and the invasion actually proceeded from there, so I'd assume Mexican forces participated as well. That would have been obscured because the main antagonist characters were a Russian commander and a Cuban commander. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot: > In an alternate 1980s, the United States is strategically isolated after NATO is disbanded. At the same time, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies aggressively expand. In addition, the Ukrainian wheat harvest fails while a socialist coup d'état occurs in Mexico.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    It’s like the exact story happened in reverse
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Except for the small detail that nobody cares about invading Russia.
      - macintux 4y ago
        China might, as Siberia warms and Russia’s military forces are depleted.
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        No, China has no interest in this.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        China has an interest in the normalization of reconquest and regional spheres of influence superceding other norms, and an interest in both Russia and the West being focussed on conflict in Europe.
        rnk 4y ago
        Yes, because the next big attack of a major country invading a weaker democratic country will be China invading Taiwan. Unless Russia gives up on that meany Ukraine and attacks the belligerent Moldavia (expands the separatist region) because they want a victory.
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        The remaining Azov troops just surrender in Mariupol, they have been winning pretty hard lately.
        mcv 4y ago
        Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive. Significantly less than Russia and the US. Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? They do make it very clear that they consider some countries and territories an intrinsic part of China (Taiwan obviously, Hong Kong, and this was also the case with Tibet), but they're generally not very aggressive about taking them, and extremely patient about waiting for the right moment, and tend to do it with minimal bloodshed. So far at least. (And only in their expansion; they have far less scruples about domestic bloodshed.) That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it. Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
      - sudosysgen 4y ago
        Invading, no, but regime change? Absolutely (see Western involvement in the Russian civil war and, well, all of the cold war)
      - freeflight 4y ago
        That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it. Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2]. All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves. That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check. A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion. Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades. That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further. [0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speech-on-nato-enlargement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec... [3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa
tablespoon 4y ago
> It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?). Of course. The DEW line was mean to warn against a Soviet nuclear attack, but in that movie no such attack occurs.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked. Oh, that's totally possible. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, and I just recall that nukes didn't feature in the plot at all.
HWR_14 4y ago
The Ukraine harvest suffering isn't as random as you might think. It produced the majority of the food for the Warsaw block, and avoiding a famine leading to revolution is a good reason to start a major war. NATO being dissolved is pretty deterministic as well. The average American in 1984 couldn't conceive of the Russians actually making it all the way over to the US. Nuking the US, but not a successful land invasion. So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film. I don't recall exactly where I read it (it was some interview or something with the people who made the movie 10+ years ago), but I think it was a little more extreme than that. IIRC, (the perhaps unstated) bit of the backstory was domino theory was true and the US was badly on the wrong end of it. The NATO dissolving thing was just part of the picture.
- aksss 4y ago
  > Average American in 1984 couldn't conceive.... "Couldn't conceive" is pretty strong - it was the era of the Cold War, GI Joe, a hangover from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the contras. Maybe accurate to say the average American would find it highly improbable, and our eventual victory always assured because Chuck Norris, Rambo, and the inherent virtue of our cause against totalitarianism. Anyway, I think the paratroopers that appear in Red Dawn are from Cuba or a socialist country in Central/South America, right? Which isn't terribly far-fetched in the context of the eighties imagination - maybe more accessible idea than a Soviet D-Day-style invasion. Also not out of line in history - didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII? The French during the Civil War (I use the word "court" loosely with the French 'intervention', but hell, we got a holiday out of it). The film was marketed saying that no foreign invasion of US soil had happened, though it ignored the Japanese invasion of Alaska. The "average American" probably still doesn't think of Alaska very often except for reality TV, much less its history. https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780-alaska-wwii-battle https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780...
wombatpm 4y ago
Tom Cruise was not in Red Dawn In the 1984 movie, paratroopers dropped from supposed commercial flights, which was the approach the USSR used for their 1980 invasion of Afghanistan Nukes were used later against the Chinese, which was why there were 500 million screaming Chinese in our side. 13 year old me was a big fan of the movie. John has a big mustache. The chair is against the wall.
- mzs 4y ago
  The Soviets did not parachute from commercial flights during Storm-333.
- skmurphy 4y ago
  I had to look up "John has a long mustache. The chair is against the wall. " They are explained in this blog post. https://www.housemorningwood.com/red-dawn-code-words-and-wolverines/ https://www.housemorningwood.com/red-dawn-code-words-and-wol... "John has a long mustache" is a callback to the movie "The Longest Day" as a signal to French Resistance.
  - rnk 4y ago
    Now those kids look like my nightmare vision of the American Taliban.
    - eggy 4y ago
      Except if there ever is an incident, and something like those kids save your ass. I've watched many people intellectualize something, and then when it gets visceral, reach for the thing they repulsed or detested before. Sort of what happened during 9/11. I was a middle of the road kind of guy, half dove, half hawk. I grew up in a violent neighborhood fighting when I didn't want to. Four years of military school, and I watched my more dovish friends go total hawk.
      - rnk 4y ago
        Those kids are my cousins kind of, in a sense based on where I come from and the people that I go home to visit. I don't think I have any misperceptions about the good things that those people can do and the hard work that let's say "rural people" do in their lives. But I also have learned they're pretty much universally believing in things that are not true, from the election being stolen to q&a stuff and an unfortunate fixation on racism. Pretty much they're mostly influenced by Fox News, their elders more than the younger generation, but plenty of people in the younger generation have inherited some kind of white grievance. I see those kinds of people as really unhappy because they see that there is not a good economic future in general for people in farming and rural areas. In my family the people that still have farms call them hobby farms and they have real jobs out in the world doing something.
aksss 4y ago
Tom Cruise wasn't in Red Dawn, as I recall - maybe thinking about Charlie Sheen (the discount Tom Cruise)? Yes, wheat harvest fails in Ukraine, coup in Mexico, NATO disbanded. Cuban paratroopers in the first wave if I recall correctly. Still a highly enjoyable movie - one of the best eighties adventure flicks.
- eggy 4y ago
  Hah, the discount Tom Cruise, that's funny! Yeah, I saw it in 1984, so it's been a while. My mind is slipping. Navy Seals (1990) was Charlie Sheen. Could have been better with Tom Cruise!

by eggy 4y ago

It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?).

sidewndr46 4y ago

Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Of course, that was the Cubans that invaded. In the backstory for the movie it wasn't just the Cubans. The Russians directly led it, and also Mexico went Communist and the invasion actually proceeded from there, so I'd assume Mexican forces participated as well. That would have been obscured because the main antagonist characters were a Russian commander and a Cuban commander. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn#Plot: > In an alternate 1980s, the United States is strategically isolated after NATO is disbanded. At the same time, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies aggressively expand. In addition, the Ukrainian wheat harvest fails while a socialist coup d'état occurs in Mexico.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  It’s like the exact story happened in reverse
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Except for the small detail that nobody cares about invading Russia.
    - macintux 4y ago
      China might, as Siberia warms and Russia’s military forces are depleted.
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        No, China has no interest in this.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        China has an interest in the normalization of reconquest and regional spheres of influence superceding other norms, and an interest in both Russia and the West being focussed on conflict in Europe.
        rnk 4y ago
        Yes, because the next big attack of a major country invading a weaker democratic country will be China invading Taiwan. Unless Russia gives up on that meany Ukraine and attacks the belligerent Moldavia (expands the separatist region) because they want a victory.
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        The remaining Azov troops just surrender in Mariupol, they have been winning pretty hard lately.
        mcv 4y ago
        Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive. Significantly less than Russia and the US. Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? They do make it very clear that they consider some countries and territories an intrinsic part of China (Taiwan obviously, Hong Kong, and this was also the case with Tibet), but they're generally not very aggressive about taking them, and extremely patient about waiting for the right moment, and tend to do it with minimal bloodshed. So far at least. (And only in their expansion; they have far less scruples about domestic bloodshed.) That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it. Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      Invading, no, but regime change? Absolutely (see Western involvement in the Russian civil war and, well, all of the cold war)
    - freeflight 4y ago
      That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it. Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2]. All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves. That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check. A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion. Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades. That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further. [0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speech-on-nato-enlargement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec... [3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

tablespoon 4y ago

> It didn't seem to help Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze in the 1984 movie Red Dawn ;) Interesting NATO is disbanded in that movie, and the harvest in the Ukraine suffers for some reason (blight? war?). Of course. The DEW line was mean to warn against a Soviet nuclear attack, but in that movie no such attack occurs.

HideousKojima 4y ago
Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Actually the downed jet pilot mentions DC, NYC, and a few other cities getting nuked. Oh, that's totally possible. It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, and I just recall that nukes didn't feature in the plot at all.

HWR_14 4y ago

The Ukraine harvest suffering isn't as random as you might think. It produced the majority of the food for the Warsaw block, and avoiding a famine leading to revolution is a good reason to start a major war. NATO being dissolved is pretty deterministic as well. The average American in 1984 couldn't conceive of the Russians actually making it all the way over to the US. Nuking the US, but not a successful land invasion. So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film.

tablespoon 4y ago
> So there had to be some reason the US got weaker. NATO dissolving doesn't put any blame for that on the US, which is important for a flag-waving film. I don't recall exactly where I read it (it was some interview or something with the people who made the movie 10+ years ago), but I think it was a little more extreme than that. IIRC, (the perhaps unstated) bit of the backstory was domino theory was true and the US was badly on the wrong end of it. The NATO dissolving thing was just part of the picture.
aksss 4y ago
> Average American in 1984 couldn't conceive.... "Couldn't conceive" is pretty strong - it was the era of the Cold War, GI Joe, a hangover from the Cuban Missile Crisis, the contras. Maybe accurate to say the average American would find it highly improbable, and our eventual victory always assured because Chuck Norris, Rambo, and the inherent virtue of our cause against totalitarianism. Anyway, I think the paratroopers that appear in Red Dawn are from Cuba or a socialist country in Central/South America, right? Which isn't terribly far-fetched in the context of the eighties imagination - maybe more accessible idea than a Soviet D-Day-style invasion. Also not out of line in history - didn't the Germans court the Mexicans in WWII? The French during the Civil War (I use the word "court" loosely with the French 'intervention', but hell, we got a holiday out of it). The film was marketed saying that no foreign invasion of US soil had happened, though it ignored the Japanese invasion of Alaska. The "average American" probably still doesn't think of Alaska very often except for reality TV, much less its history. https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780-alaska-wwii-battle https://www.archaeology.org/issues/433-2107/letter-from/9780...

wombatpm 4y ago

Tom Cruise was not in Red Dawn In the 1984 movie, paratroopers dropped from supposed commercial flights, which was the approach the USSR used for their 1980 invasion of Afghanistan Nukes were used later against the Chinese, which was why there were 500 million screaming Chinese in our side. 13 year old me was a big fan of the movie. John has a big mustache. The chair is against the wall.

mzs 4y ago
The Soviets did not parachute from commercial flights during Storm-333.
skmurphy 4y ago
I had to look up "John has a long mustache. The chair is against the wall. " They are explained in this blog post. https://www.housemorningwood.com/red-dawn-code-words-and-wolverines/ https://www.housemorningwood.com/red-dawn-code-words-and-wol... "John has a long mustache" is a callback to the movie "The Longest Day" as a signal to French Resistance.
- rnk 4y ago
  Now those kids look like my nightmare vision of the American Taliban.
  - eggy 4y ago
    Except if there ever is an incident, and something like those kids save your ass. I've watched many people intellectualize something, and then when it gets visceral, reach for the thing they repulsed or detested before. Sort of what happened during 9/11. I was a middle of the road kind of guy, half dove, half hawk. I grew up in a violent neighborhood fighting when I didn't want to. Four years of military school, and I watched my more dovish friends go total hawk.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Those kids are my cousins kind of, in a sense based on where I come from and the people that I go home to visit. I don't think I have any misperceptions about the good things that those people can do and the hard work that let's say "rural people" do in their lives. But I also have learned they're pretty much universally believing in things that are not true, from the election being stolen to q&a stuff and an unfortunate fixation on racism. Pretty much they're mostly influenced by Fox News, their elders more than the younger generation, but plenty of people in the younger generation have inherited some kind of white grievance. I see those kinds of people as really unhappy because they see that there is not a good economic future in general for people in farming and rural areas. In my family the people that still have farms call them hobby farms and they have real jobs out in the world doing something.

aksss 4y ago

Tom Cruise wasn't in Red Dawn, as I recall - maybe thinking about Charlie Sheen (the discount Tom Cruise)? Yes, wheat harvest fails in Ukraine, coup in Mexico, NATO disbanded. Cuban paratroopers in the first wave if I recall correctly. Still a highly enjoyable movie - one of the best eighties adventure flicks.

eggy 4y ago
Hah, the discount Tom Cruise, that's funny! Yeah, I saw it in 1984, so it's been a while. My mind is slipping. Navy Seals (1990) was Charlie Sheen. Could have been better with Tom Cruise!