Did the U. S. win the Cold War? (1 Viewer)

[bird]

If so, what does that mean and what were the fruits of that victory?

If not, what actually did happen? Has democracy "spread"? Is there more stability or less?

My answer to the first question is no. We did not "win" anything. The fruits were rotting on the branch and vine. The collapse of the USSR and the elimination of the Iron Curtain is not the same as "winning".

What actually happened was a shift in alignments and relations. Some nations rose and some fell. The U.S. is not more secure. Democracy did not spread like we believed it would. The 'Stans are corrupt and autocratic. Other countries assumed to be democratic like Turkey and Hungary and, to a degree, Poland, have shifted with the rise of RW authoritarian politicians/movements.

On a side note the concept of a fast strike, small force military has become discredited much like the concept of military from WW2. In-and-out with minimal casualties and a so-called "purpose" and "exit strategy" is a chimera. War changes. We have not changed.

 

[bird]

China is the REAL winner of our cold war with Russia (USSR),

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. I have had some interesting discussions on radiofreeliberal.com about the role Confucianism plays regarding the relationship between government (the emperor) and the governed and what they owe each other. The Chinese Communist Party is paranoid about real or imagined social unrest. They also or so it has been said play the “long game” regarding geopolitics. There is an alleged story from maybe the 1990’s that a Chinese official (I don’t remember who) was asked what he thought of the French Revolution. The Chinese official answered that it was too soon to tell. I would put forth that the CCP utilizes nationalism as an integral part of it’s foreign and domestic policies (imo,, foreign is a projection of domestic). China was the largest economy in the world prior to the rise of Europe. It will be again and the Party elites believe it is their rightful place. Of course uncertainty and the unthinkable may have something different to say.

 

[SamAndreas]

Well, maybe yes, maybe no. I have had some interesting discussions on radiofreeliberal.com about the role Confucianism plays regarding the relationship between government (the emperor) and the governed and what they owe each other. The Chinese Communist Party is paranoid about real or imagined social unrest. They also or so it has been said play the “long game” regarding geopolitics. There is an alleged story from maybe the 1990’s that a Chinese official (I don’t remember who) was asked what he thought of the French Revolution. The Chinese official answered that it was too soon to tell. I would put forth that the CCP utilizes nationalism as an integral part of it’s foreign and domestic policies (imo,, foreign is a projection of domestic). China was the largest economy in the world prior to the rise of Europe. It will be again and the Party elites believe it is their rightful place. Of course uncertainty and the unthinkable may have something different to say.

Another thing about China is that unlike us and almost all of the European countries, is that barring neighboring border disputes where they feel that they're fighting for their own land and vital interests, China is yet to have ever been an aggressor in a major war.

A possible exception to that is the war they call their "Great War", we call it the Korean war, and that war was with us. In that war they feel they were defending one of their adjacent neighbors from our aggression.

As nations go they've been quite peaceful all throughout their long history.

I don't fear them much. I think we might fight an economic tariff war with them over dollars, but insofar as them attacking us with troops with the goal being invasion I don't worry about that near as much as I worry about that coming from "friendly" Europe.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

If you'd like to argue that it was about something else, do so.

Please. It's really quite simple. When a bomb goes off you duck and cover.

"duck and cover, preparedness measure in the United States designed to be a civil-defense response in case of a nuclear attack. The procedure was practiced in the 1950s and ’60s, during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies following World War II. Once the Soviet Union achieved a nuclear capability, U.S. citizens began to prepare for a possible nuclear attack. Among the domestic preparedness measures undertaken by the United States were the construction of fallout shelters and the implementation of air-raid drills in schools and the workplace."

Duck and cover | Definition, Drills, History, & Facts

Duck and cover, preparedness measure in the United States designed to be a civil-defense response in case of a nuclear attack. The procedure was practiced in the 1950s and ’60s, during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies following World War II.

www.britannica.com

Now, how effective it would have been at saving lives during a nuclear bombardment is a different story but they felt the need to say and do something. So, I can assure you, it wasn't designed to set off a pavlovian response to either "commies" or the U.S. power structure.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

"They're all gone and we're still here."

The Cold War started right at the end of WWII. It was fought in Korea, Vietnam, Columbia, Mexico, Cuba, Angola, Egypt, Iraq, China, and on and on.

At the end of that struggle, the USSR dissolved.

So, I would say we won.

What did we get out of it? No WWIII.

 

[J-DONK]

I would say that capitalism leads, as it is now in this country and elsewhere, to a two-tiered society a la the movie Elysium. Yes, that is a gross example. Jeffrey Faux captured it well, imo, in his book "The Servant Economy".

Russia is much more an authoritarian kleptocracy than capitalist. Obeisance to the Vohzd is mandatory. This also underscores Putin's nationalistic and expansionist tendencies. China is best described as an authoritarian system with some room made for people to make some money. Again as inj Russia the CCP requires that the people "color within the lines" so to speak. Thus, Von Hayek was wrong as capitalism does not arbitrarily lead to freedom.

As for Pax Americana it became a chimera. Force projection is far more difficult now than it was when the world was, at least superficially, divided into two camps. That is no longer the case and asymmetrical warfare is showing itself to be far harder to deal with.

Complexity increases as speed of communication and dependency upon unsecured and unsecurable systems gain stronger holds on people. The internet is not safe nor can it be made safe. As complexity increases systems become inherently unstable. We need only look at the South China Sea and, as always it seems, the Middle East. Violence is not only state on state but increasing group on group/group on state. We also see problems in Latin America as usual, Sub-Saharan Africa including Nigeria especially as well as authoritarianism rising in Europe. No, we are not more stable and less violent. Instability and violence have simply shifted.

I suggest Joshua Cooper Ramo's book: "The Age of The Unthinkable: Why the New World Disorder Constantly Surprises Us".

I feel like your getting the economy, and the government confused. You can be a kleptocracy, and/or authoritarian, and have a capitalist economy. If you want to think of it as a capitalism being the engine that powers the car, what you surround that engine with is your choice. I mean a lot of times kleptocracy is called "crony capitalism".

I have no idea what you're talking about force projection. If anything it's easier. What you are alluding to is it's much easier to CONQUER a country then it is to OCCUPY it.

You sound like a prepper talking about how complexity causes instability.

The world is more stable now. Pax Americana/Atomica is a real thing. That's not even debatable. There is plenty of data out there that supports the idea that the world has overall gotten more peaceful following WW2.

What is the most destabilizing factors going forward? I would argue an aging population in the West, Russia, and China. Followed by climate change, if sea level rise occurs as fast some of the worst models predict.

 

[bird]

I feel like your getting the economy, and the government confused. You can be a kleptocracy, and/or authoritarian, and have a capitalist economy. If you want to think of it as a capitalism being the engine that powers the car, what you surround that engine with is your choice. I mean a lot of times kleptocracy is called "crony capitalism".

I have no idea what you're talking about force projection. If anything it's easier. What you are alluding to is it's much easier to CONQUER a country then it is to OCCUPY it.

You sound like a prepper talking about how complexity causes instability.

The world is more stable now. Pax Americana/Atomica is a real thing. That's not even debatable. There is plenty of data out there that supports the idea that the world has overall gotten more peaceful following WW2.

What is the most destabilizing factors going forward? I would argue an aging population in the West, Russia, and China. Followed by climate change, if sea level rise occurs as fast some of the worst models predict.

Prepper? Not at all.

Let us look at some examples:

Iraq
Afganistan
The Balkans
Sub-Saharan Africa
The Middle East
The South China Sea
The rise of Erdogan in Turkey
The rise of the Party of Law and Justice in Poland
Marine LePen
the German RW extremists making noise
Brazil
Venezuela
Hungary
PRC and the Uighurs/Tibet
Myanmar
Modi in India
Iran
The 'Stans

Heck, I fogot Covid and its impact in places like Africa.

As for economy and government? The terminology was/is political economy. Politics is who gets what, where, when, how and why. The getting is done through transactions meaning the "economy" which is not a separate stand alone thing that can be studied independent of political, social, psychological and anthropological inputs.

Pax Americana? I counter with the GWOT.

Hyman Minsky wrote about stability breeding instability particularly in the financial system and economy. That was obvious from the Great Recession. Belief in unchanging circumstances leads to increased risk-taking because, well, we can always refinance or we can always dump these crappy bonds. Until you can't. There have been multiple financial crisis in the last 60 years alone. Commercial paper, the Mexican Peso, the collapse of the so-called Asian Tigers, the stagnation of Japan, the collapse of LTCM, the Russian collapse, the Internet bubble, and the Great Recession. These have cost all told trillions of dollars.

Look at the so-called Arab Spring. Food costs were a huge input. Governments resorted to suppression. Tunisia fell, Libya fell, Egypt fell and so on. We stepped into it with the idiocy of the GWOT and the invasion of Iraq which ended as a defeat no matter what anyone says.

We, humans are still paying for the complete and utter mess called "the Great War" or WW1. This revolved around what was called "The Great Game" regarding the political gamesmanship of the Middle East. Nations were created based upon basically nothing.

Relations between democracies appear stable. Relations within democracies are less transparent. Relations within authoritarian states and failed states even less so. There was a theory years ago that democracies did not go to war against each other. Trade and economic policies would forbid it. With the collapse of Yugoslavia and the establishment of several new "nations" (tribal zones?) we saw the US, a democracy, go to war against a democracy where the leader was duly elected in Serbia.

The most destabilizing factor may be climate change. Beyond that we do not know what is or isn't because we lack data on one hand and an over abundance of data while not knowing what it signifies on the other hand. This is complexity defined.

Finally, climate change which the most existential threat that we face impacts different places differently. It was a driver in the Arab Spring. We do not know what to do exactly. Solutions posed get bogged down in politics influenced by various factors. Solutions for cheap energy are put forward. Allegedly wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuel right now. How will that change? The so-called "Law of Supply and Demand" which is nothing more than jargon used to cover a psychological greed/fear response allegedly says that increased demand for energy supplied by alternatives MUST increase the cost of that energy.

Food riots are an externality. Which is utter bullschlitz. There is no such thing as an externality. The abandonment of the current political economy deemed the "winner" and T.I.N.A. is the crucial issue facing us. Everything else derives from that.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Please. It's really quite simple. When a bomb goes off you duck and cover.

"duck and cover, preparedness measure in the United States designed to be a civil-defense response in case of a nuclear attack. The procedure was practiced in the 1950s and ’60s, during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies following World War II. Once the Soviet Union achieved a nuclear capability, U.S. citizens began to prepare for a possible nuclear attack. Among the domestic preparedness measures undertaken by the United States were the construction of fallout shelters and the implementation of air-raid drills in schools and the workplace."



Now, how effective it would have been at saving lives during a nuclear bombardment is a different story but they felt the need to say and do something. So, I can assure you, it wasn't designed to set off a pavlovian response to either "commies" or the U.S. power structure.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffft, duck and cover was foisted upon school children cowering under their desks with the fear of "commies" and the USSR as if we were preparing for a nuclear holocaust.

 

[SamAndreas]

This is a good video about the Russian end of Red October. How the Russians (and Germans) are disposing of 100 nuclear submarines.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffft, duck and cover was foisted upon school children cowering under their desks with the fear of "commies" and the USSR as if we were preparing for a nuclear holocaust.

Just noticed this.

Firstly, I was in school during that time and I barely, if at all, remember it/duck and cover. Second, as has been pointed out, they felt a need to say something and have some sort of plan, realistic or not. Third, you didn't need duck and cover to be aware of the possibility of a nuclear exchange with the USSR. There was a Nike base within a few miles of where I lived.

Blazing Skies: Boston’s Nike Missiles (episodes 226)​

For almost 20 years, Nike missile batteries formed a suburban ring around Boston that ushered the city into the 1950s and the atomic age.

http://www.hubhistory.com/episodes/blazing-skies-bostons-nike-missiles-episodes-226/

 

[SystemShock]

The world is more stable now. Pax Americana/Atomica is a real thing. That's not even debatable. There is plenty of data out there that supports the idea that the world has overall gotten more peaceful following WW2.

Where is this data?

There has not been another world war, but there have been multiple localized wars/civil wars all over the globe.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan say there is no such thing as "pax americana", and that's just a few of the armed conflicts the U.S. has gotten into.... there's only a nuclear stand-off between Russia and the U.S.

 

[SamAndreas]

Where is this data?

There has not been another world war, but there have been multiple localized wars/civil wars all over the globe.

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan say there is no such thing as "pax americana", and that's just a few of the armed conflicts the U.S. has gotten into.... there's only a nuclear stand-off between Russia and the U.S.

Here's that Data.

What J-Donk has said is spot on. Peace is a difficult thing to quantify. How does one count those who didn't die???

Here's a graphic representation of that data for both war and peace. Start it at 13:13 to go directly to the point and see the effects of the "Long Peace" quantified. By long peace I mean relative peace, about 70 years of "relative" peace since WWII.

Watch the whole thing to have that point driven thoroughly home by the data.

 

[SystemShock]

Here's that Data.

What J-Donk has said is spot on. Peace is a difficult thing to quantify. How does one count those who didn't die???

If peace is difficult to quantify, then how is the claim "spot on"?

Here's a graphic representation of that data for both war and peace. Start it at 13:13 to go directly to the point and see the effects of the "Long Peace" quantified. By long peace I mean relative peace, about 70 years of "relative" peace since WWII.

Watch the whole thing to have that point driven thoroughly home by the data.

I've seen that video before. Nice graphics in that video. But "number of deaths" is not really a measuring stick of peace, it is just counting deaths. Because more people die in conflict A than it conflict B. it doesn't mean there was peace where conflict B happened, does it now?

Just the wars, conflicts and dirty wars the U.S. has been involved in since the end of WWII defeat the claim. Then the Middle East raises its hand and puts the nail in the coffin. Then Africa just rubs it in. Then Ibero-America adds insult to injury.

And even the video you posted list just 20 of the deadliest conflicts since WWII, so even your video defeats the claim of "relative peace".

Pedantic side note: if you are going to talk numbers, at least to me, it doesn't look good when 5 seconds in you don't give accurate data. In 2015, the average life span in the U.S. was 78.94 years, not 80.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Just noticed this.

Firstly, I was in school during that time and I barely, if at all, remember it/duck and cover. Second, as has been pointed out, they felt a need to say something and have some sort of plan, realistic or not. Third, you didn't need duck and cover to be aware of the possibility of a nuclear exchange with the USSR. There was a Nike base within a few miles of where I lived.


http://www.hubhistory.com/episodes/blazing-skies-bostons-nike-missiles-episodes-226/

Not all of america's children lived where you lived and the mindfuck needed to be across the nation and a generation. The possibility is with us still is it not? Perhaps more so now. It's kinda like the programming that if you buy guns, you're safer.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Here's that Data.

What J-Donk has said is spot on. Peace is a difficult thing to quantify. How does one count those who didn't die???

Here's a graphic representation of that data for both war and peace. Start it at 13:13 to go directly to the point and see the effects of the "Long Peace" quantified. By long peace I mean relative peace, about 70 years of "relative" peace since WWII.

Watch the whole thing to have that point driven thoroughly home by the data.

I get that, but america was certainly not at peace over those 70 years. It is true however that we've not had a constitutionally declared war since WWII. But we don't gaf about the constitution when it comes to our wars anymore.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Not all of america's children lived where you lived and the mindfuck needed to be across the nation and a generation. The possibility is with us still is it not? Perhaps more so now. It's kinda like the programming that if you buy guns, you're safer.

I'm sorry you were mind fudged. I hope you're better now.

 

[H B Lowrey]

I'm sorry you were mind fudged. I hope you're better now.

Oh I never bought into it thanks.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Oh I never bought into it thanks.

Neither did anyone else.

 

[H B Lowrey]

Neither did anyone else.

You seem to have.