Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO doesn't challenge USSR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NATO doesn't challenge USSR

    What if NATO - and the USA especially - didn't run an arms race with the USSR?

    Their economy would eventually go bust anyway, so we'd be in a capitalist world still...but how would things be different?

  • #2
    Мы говорили бы русского сегодня.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Russia would probably end up like China eventually, but it would still be a better world, and we wouldn't have a generation of brainwashed people like The Doctor, and not because anyone would've killed them either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
        Russia would probably end up like China eventually, but it would still be a better world, and we wouldn't have a generation of brainwashed people like The Doctor, and not because anyone would've killed them either.
        In the late 1970's, the United States was in disarray. From the early 1970's up until 1981, the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War. The US was falling behind economically and losing its edge militarily,

        If Ronald Reagan had lost the 1980 election, we would have continued on that path. President Reagan re-built America's confidence in itself. And he did two things that reversed the 1970's momentum...
        He structured our foreign policy around building our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. This led to increased OPEC oil production and much lower oil prices. The lower oil prices in the latter half of the 1980's drastically reduced the USSR's access to hard currency.

        He launched a massive rearmament program. This forced the USSR into a massively expensive arms race at exactly the same time that their economy as tanking do to the lower oil prices.

        Four more years of Jimmy Carter would have led to higher and higher oil prices and a weaker and weaker United States. By 1984, NATO would have been thinking really hard about negotiating a pax soveticus. The American people would have long ago turned inwardworn down by a decade of communist expansion throughout the undeveloped world.

        We might not be speaking Russian today...But the world would look like an extrapolation of 1973-1980.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          The USSR had more warheads right up until the end. Just imagine if all the money spent on arms would have been spent on the betterment of each respective society. A world stuck in the 1970's? I don't think so!

          And American would have been better off without Reaganomics, or Saudi Arabia, that's for damn sure.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            In the late 1970's, the United States was in disarray. From the early 1970's up until 1981, the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War. The US was falling behind economically and losing its edge militarily,

            If Ronald Reagan had lost the 1980 election, we would have continued on that path. President Reagan re-built America's confidence in itself. And he did two things that reversed the 1970's momentum...
            He structured our foreign policy around building our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States. This led to increased OPEC oil production and much lower oil prices. The lower oil prices in the latter half of the 1980's drastically reduced the USSR's access to hard currency.

            He launched a massive rearmament program. This forced the USSR into a massively expensive arms race at exactly the same time that their economy as tanking do to the lower oil prices.

            Four more years of Jimmy Carter would have led to higher and higher oil prices and a weaker and weaker United States. By 1984, NATO would have been thinking really hard about negotiating a pax soveticus. The American people would have long ago turned inwardworn down by a decade of communist expansion throughout the undeveloped world.

            We might not be speaking Russian today...But the world would look like an extrapolation of 1973-1980.
            Oh BS. I spent the first decade of my adult life in the 1970s & the so called Regan Recovery' was clearly underway long before Ronnies group could claim credit. When I entered the USMC in 1974 discipline had not fallen off, old weapons were being discarded for new, training was being revamped, the portion of USMC battalions unready for combat had already dropped back to early 1960s levels.

            In the 1970s forigen imports were an anoyance. By the end of the Regan era the meltdown of US manufactoring was clearly well underway. A large diesel engine plant begain construction by Caterpillar in my hometown in the 1970s, specifically during the Carter Presidency. Completed two years after Regan became President it sat empty. production was not started due to cancellation of orders for its motors. A mile from that factory our former largest employer, a aluminum extrusion mill had cut its labor force by 60%+ during the Regan era, mostly after 1984.

            The doctor can believe what he wants. Similar rants have been raised numerous times on these discussion boards & typically lead nowhere usefull. Trying to cast the broad sweep of history and decades of complex social and economic events in simplistic political drivel suggests a lot about the mentality of the author.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't know where you were, but I had a ball during the 80s, they were a hell of a lot better than the 70s, and Carter was the most depressing President I can remember.

              No NATO?
              First thing that happens is a communist Greece and Austria. that would have happeend while Stalin was still alive.
              No NATO means that individual nations could have been toppled one by one. Turkey as well.

              The Middle East would have been next, "no Saudi Arabia" indeed. One massive, gray world of unrelenting sameness, without options and without hope.

              Oh, and China did not go the way of Russia for one reason; Tienanmen Square.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                I don't know where you were, but I had a ball during the 80s, they were a hell of a lot better than the 70s, and Carter was the most depressing President I can remember.

                No NATO?
                First thing that happens is a communist Greece and Austria. that would have happeend while Stalin was still alive.
                No NATO means that individual nations could have been toppled one by one. Turkey as well.

                The Middle East would have been next, "no Saudi Arabia" indeed. One massive, gray world of unrelenting sameness, without options and without hope.

                Oh, and China did not go the way of Russia for one reason; Tienanmen Square.
                Armenia wanted Stalin to invade Turkey in 1945, he refused.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                  Oh BS. I spent the first decade of my adult life in the 1970s & the so called Regan Recovery' was clearly underway long before Ronnies group could claim credit. When I entered the USMC in 1974 discipline had not fallen off...
                  Carl...You were (or I should say are) a Marine...Discipline never fell off...And you were used to making adequate equipment perform in a superior manner. The A-4 Skyhawk was still in VMA squadron service in the early '80's...and a superior CAS platform to anything in the hands of the Air Force or Navy. Heck...the Corps didn't trade in its M60 tanks until the mid 1990s...They're still flying the Cobra at the end of the alpahbet (Zebra)...They were even flying OV-10 Bronco's in the Gulf War.

                  Marines can do more with less...that anyone else can do with a lot more. We mere mortals needed a bit more of an edge...


                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10

                    Cold war? What cold war?!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                      Russia would probably end up like China eventually, but it would still be a better world, and we wouldn't have a generation of brainwashed people like The Doctor, and not because anyone would've killed them either.
                      China is 95% monoethnic country
                      The USSR would have ended as it ended much earlier if it hadn't engaged in the Cold War.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                        China is 95% monoethnic country
                        The USSR would have ended as it ended much earlier if it hadn't engaged in the Cold War.
                        Are you my stalker? Sorry, but you EPIC FAILED again, all Chinese might look alike to you but actually there is quite a bit of ethnic diversity there.




                        The Han Chinese might be the majority, but the important thing to remember that there is a lot of Chinese, all the "others" are 105 million people.

                        According to wiki anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                          Are you my stalker? Sorry, but you EPIC FAILED again, all Chinese might look alike to you but actually there is quite a bit of ethnic diversity there.

                          Han Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉族 or 汉人; traditional Chinese: 漢族 or 漢人; pinyin: hnz or hnrn) are an ethnic group native to China and, by most modern definitions, the largest single ethnic group in the world.

                          Han Chinese constitute about 92 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China (mainland China)


                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese


                          Read wikipedia article before referring to it
                          Last edited by Shamil; 06 Feb 09, 04:51.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Shamil View Post
                            Han Chinese (simplified Chinese: 汉族 or 汉人; traditional Chinese: 漢族 or 漢人; pinyin: hnz or hnrn) are an ethnic group native to China and, by most modern definitions, the largest single ethnic group in the world.

                            Han Chinese constitute about 92 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China (mainland China)


                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese
                            I already said the same thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Emil_G View Post
                              I already said the same thing.
                              What is "quite a bit of ethnic diversity" there if 92 percent of the population of the People's Republic of China belong to the one ethnic group?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X