The question concerning Iran's nuclear program and all its mysteries got me to thinking more about something I've been thinking for a while.

There's a line from Jimmy Buffett's (a personal hero of mine) song "Party at the End of the World" that goes like this:

Now in case you hadn't heard
Things are getting quite absurd
No one really shocks us that's for sure
Roadside bombers and tsunamis
Oh god How I miss those Commies
No one really plays fair anymore

I think Delaney's son James is on to something.

Like many of us, I grew up under the always-present "threat" of nuclear annihilation. I well remember the drills in school where we would cower under our desks with our math books over our head, which would surely enable our survival through a multi-megaton detonation.

Well, the old USSR folded, thanks in large part to Reagan's policies and strength of will. Remember how happy we all were, and visions of world peace were dancing in our heads? Apparently the adage/law "nature abhors a vacuum" is entirely correct, as we look at the numbskulls that now have/are working on/would like to have nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, as so forth.

Is there any question that these goobers will not show the relative level-headedness that the former Soviet Union did? When the USSR was a major player, they kept most, if not all, of these lunatics at bay. Actually, "under the thumb of an iron fist" would probably be more accurate.

Were we safer then than now? Or is safety just an illusion?

With Putin's star continuing to rise, will we see a return to those days gone by? If you don't know they guy, do a little research. He was a truly frightening individual back in the day, and I've seen nothing that indicates any change whatsoever. If we do see a return to a USA/USSR/PRC (to a degree) standoff, would we be better off than we are now?

tomder55

I don't think the good ol days were that good. I have vivid memories of the Russian fleet heading for our line in the Atlantic . My father had retired from the Navy by then but he was subject to recall .He was a sober intel. officer so he always had an air of confidence and composure. But he had constructed a shelter in the basement and kept it well stocked .

I recall that in at least 2 major conflicts we lost close to 100,000 troops battling the Communist threat . Worldwide millions of people died from the twin plague of Stalinism-Maoism .

The Soviets armed the Arab nations and the world again came close to the brink in 1973. Yes ;the use of nukes was seriously contemplated then also .

Perhaps the USSR kept lunatics at bay "under the thumb of an iron fist" .That would be true of places like the former Yugoslavia where Tito had a lid on the ethnic strife . But they intentionally destablized more places in the world like Latin America and sub-Sahara Africa.

Your question about the former Soviet Bloc neighbors to Russia brings up an interesting point.They have been scrambling to desperately join NATO . Should they be admitted ;and should our security umbrella be extended ? Before you answer ;consider that Poland has been a key ally in the war against jihadistan and Eastern European nations have been enthusiastic converts to capitalism. Will we defend them when the hammer and sickle falls again ? I don't know . I am not sure we will defend Taiwan.

kindj

No, they weren't. But I ain't too sure about these days, either.

Yeah, I'd let 'em in. Especially those who are straining at the leash to get in. Because my question is: Why are they wanting in sooooo badly? I think it's two-fold: One, they remember all too well what it was like then, and they've seen what they can do with a smidgen of freedom--and they have no desire to go back to the other way. Two, they're much closer geographically than we are, and probably hear all sorts of "informal" things as a side benefit of trade and travel. What sorts of things are they hearing that we're not? Could fear--immediate fear--be a motivator for wanting so badly to join NATO? I think so.

ETWolverine

Dennis,

There is something to be said about modern times.

For instance, while the Soviets had the ability to destroy the world several hundred times over (as did we), our current enemies in the Middle East don't have that level of technology. At best, they can take out a small city. So the level of threat of an all-out nuclear war is much lower today than it was 20 years ago.

However, the nature of the threat has changed. The enemy hides in plain sight. We can't tell aenemies from friends much of the time. That is a danger that we are still coming to grips with, and for which there is no 100%effective solution.

The threat of small scale WMDs (suitcase nukes, dirty conventional bombs, chemical weapons, bio-weapons) is both greater and less likely today. Less likely because fewer nations have the capabilities to create such weapons than they did under Soviet control. Less likely because the few countries that do have the technology are very careful about security. Even countries that don't like us don't want that $h!t to get into the hands of terrorists or accidentally released on the public. But the threat is greater because those who WOULD like to get their hands on that stuff are more organized, better funded, and smarter than they were in the past. The dumb ones have been killed off over the past five years, and the ones that are left are the ones with the talent or luck or skill to survive and learn from their mistakes. That makes them more dangerous dangerous than their predecessors.

And in a way it makes the threat of terrorism a greater one than the threat of Soviet firepower. Not in terms of scale... like I said, they don't have the power to destroy the entire world the way the Soviets did. But in terms of operational tempo (they are CONSTANLY testing and trying to find new ways to attack us on our home turf), the mindset of the leadership, the ability of the enemy to blend into a crowd, and willingness of the enemy to die to accomplish their mission, they are arguably more dangerous than the Soviets. An in one way they are DEFINITELY more dangerous than the Soviets: In the old days, MAD was enough to prevent the Soviets or us from doing anything stupid. The Islamofascists have no such constraint because they don't fear their own destruction.

So there are pluses and minuses to a comparison of then vs. now. Both can be considered dangerous eras. Which is MORE dangerous? I don't know. And that's what scares me... the possibility that the terrorists could be more dangerous than the Soviet Union was.

Elliot

inthebox

No


I agree with what ET says.

What concerns me is not whichever enemy du jour is there, but the USA as a country.

Could we the citizens respond, will whatever administration respond?

What is more frightening is alot of media out there that deny the reality of terrorism - they think it is a bumper sticker slogan that this administration came up with.
Then there are the 911 conspiracy nuts.
Then there are those who blame this country for everything wrong in the world.
Not to mention the global warming crowd - talk about misplaced priorities.

And these points of view are out there - in colleges, in blogs, in the MSM.

To me that is as much a threat as some fanatical suicide bomber.

ETWolverine

And THAT is the point of the Second Amendment (or one of them)... so that we can defend ourselves when the government cannot or will not do it for us.

That is why I have a problem with the ban on so-called "assault weapons", which are really no different from any other firearm. Yes, you don't need them to hunt. But you might just need them some day to fight against an enemy incursion... and without access to a full-fledged military-grade weapon, you'll be SOL. For this reason I have a problem with bans on ANY weapon, because the enemy isn't going to limit what they use to fight us, so why should we limit what we would use against them?

Anyway this is off topic. I just wanted to make a point.

Elliot