Talk:Cold War

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon war.svg

This War related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Was the cold war a conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union or a conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Rational Edperception 08:21, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Warsaw Pact and Nato come under the heading of "Proxies", possibly... In any case, one might as well say Liberalism v. Communism, since Cuba was involved and was never part of the Pact. Wazza 08:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
That's a rather US-centric view. Proxies were small nations like Vietnam where the big boys acted out their agression. Rational Edperception 08:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
You're right, though, it's more complicated than that. It was a world-wide "war". Perhaps something like, "a conflict between the U.S. (and her allies) and the Soviet Union (and her allies)? Rational Edperception 09:16, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
I think the main point I was trying to make was that the battle lines were drawn based on ideology, though proxies were chosen more or less arbitrarily if the other side already had one in the area. Also, tension between China and Russia comes under the heading of cold war... It gets really hard really quickly to say who was on whose side. Some of the combatants in the cold war, against the Soviets, were certainly not allies of America. Can anyone say "Osama"? Wazza 10:05, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Osamq, aww crap. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 10:11, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
They were still giving him guns to kill the filthy commies while he was telling all the journalists how he'd really like to kill Americans. You'd think someone would have pointed out that once the war was won, they should maybe do something about that... but yeah, allies isn't the right word. Co-enemy-ists? Wazza 10:14, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
It could only be labeled 'Liberalism vs Communism' if there was Communism involved. It's pretty much NATO vs the Warsaw Pact, IMO. Though due to Europe suffering from the war, the most prominent members of each were the US and USSR, the two superpowers. Naturally, these guys furthered the war in other countries, but I would say that they were more a symptom of the universe war than a major combatant. -The Almighty Tuna 10:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Osama was a proxy, Japan was an ally. Ho was a proxy, Cuba was an ally. Rational Edperception 10:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes, well, you know, there kind of was communism involved... immature state communism, to be sure, where the state controls everything so that the people can be educated, so that later on the state will wither away (in theory, which all agree is the best place to have communism). It still counts as communism. Which is why lots of people prefer anarchism these days, though it has its own problems. At least anarchists don't make Gulags. But anyway, yeah, liberalism and communism. And if you think they weren't combatants, just remember who was holding the guns, who was dying... and often, decisions made by some tinpot dictator could change the whole game. No one was in control. Not even the "major combatants". Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 10:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Communism and Socialism. They're different. And it would make more sense to just call the USSR totalitarian, as it reflects both their social and political views. Communism is only after socialism, which is where the means of production are given to the workers, but the government still redistributes wealth, and then finally there's Communism, where there's no currency, and everybody's awesome and generous, and the community allows people goods in return for the person contributing their own stuff to the community. Of course, for that to work everybody would have to become selfless and discrimination would have to end. That would be awesome, but not likely. And it's definitely not possible in only one or a few nations while surrounded by capitalist nations, though Stalin most probably wasn't even aiming towards Communism. Of course, calling it 'Liberalism vs Socialism' may cause a certain US ally to rise from the grave and get really pissed off at you. Calling it Totalitarianism is way easier, though as far as I know the US did once support Pol Pot, and not all US allies were 'liberal' anyways. -The Almighty Tuna 11:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Good definition, Ed. But are allies major combatants, or just pieces in the game between the two superpowers? Not pawns, maybe, but not all kings, either. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 10:30, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

(1)Osama wasn't a communist. (2) No one was dying anywhere except in proxy countries that were too weak to resist manipulation by the real players in the game. (3) It was more communism vs democracy (4) I think it would be clearest to state it in terms of the NATO versus the Warsaw Pact, with an explanation that both sides had allies, annd both sides struggled for power and influence by trying to destabilize andgain control of countries under the influence of the other (reffered to as proxies). Rational Edperception 10:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

(1)Osama was fighting on our side, so of course he wasn't a filthy commie (sorry, I just love that phrase). (2)My point... but sometimes, if someone here did something particularly unpredictable, they could change the rules of the game; I think this happened in Vietnam a couple of times. (3) communism vs liberalism; liberalism is more basic than democracy, and some of the NATO partners are still monarchies even today. (4) Agreed, with some notes on how neither power had total control over their proxies and so the game was essentially unpredictable, and even allies could do unpredictable and frightening things like saying nukes are bad. The war wasn't between liberalism and communism, but between liberalism, communism, and human nature. Wazza (Yes, that Wazza)Bring a little light into my dim and dull existence 10:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Totalitarianism vs Republicanism? -The Almighty Tuna 11:13, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
The Forces for Good against the Forces of Darkness! Rational Edperception 11:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
That works too. -The Almighty Tuna 11:27, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

adsense[edit]

I'm seeing really amusing ads on this article, due to the Fulton reference in the image caption! humanUser talk:Human 14:43, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, www.clevelandbmw.com - Official BMW site? Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Oh, sorry. That's this talk page. Jollyfish.gifGenghisYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:49, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
This one'as a LULU! SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:01, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Cato Institute Article[edit]

Where exactly in the Article linked does it emphasize that American hegemony has created a world more peaceful than during the cold war? All I see is a pledge, that American hegemony is not guaranteeing peace and security. - 88.134.69.89 (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no mention about how Ronald Reagan won the arms race?[edit]

Reagan started a massive US miltiary buildup. He deployed Pershing II and Gryphon cruise missiles to Europe. He sped up navy shipbuilding and brought the Iowa class battleships back into service. Also he deployed MX Pacekeeper ICBMs with 10 warheads each. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Read Rachael Maddow's book Drift. You really should. I will say no more. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, if by "arms race" you mean "spend the enemy into oblivion race". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)