How did the USA win the cold war???

[Loxd4]

I don't think the US played much part in the end to the cold war.
It was more to do with Gorbachov's Glasnost & Perestroika, or can't the average American, needing instead to believe it was down to Mr Raygun's efforts, accept that ?
I don't agree the arms race & some perceived lack of the Soviet's being unable to keep up in the arms race, brought this about. They had the capacity to destoy the USA many times over. What difference does it make at that point whether it's 20 times over or 50 times over ?
When you're dead you're dead !

There was no point, why the Arms Race happen after they both had enought weapons to destoy the world two over. I just dont get it why the Soviet's where trying to keep up with the Americans for so long. They should have stop when they had enought bomb(ect.) to destory the world once(maybe twice) but that it.....I know they had some of the worst winter and had two or three civil war going on...but there has to be more of a facter....they could have done some more....like give up on the civil war since they were not in mother russia. i read i couple book and they just say it was b/c of the arms race and civil war....i just dont see how

 

[TimmyBoy]

The US won the cold war by pumping fear into the western people. The soviet threat was never really there. All the fear was due to politicians who wanted to make private enterprises profit off stupid peoples fear.

Actually, the threat from Stalin was very real. He certainly was planning to launch a World War III. Remember, the communist philosophy was "you can't have positive change until all the capitalists are destroyed."

 

[TimmyBoy]

It was Gorbi that suggested making huge arms reductions 1st.. not Reagun.
What do you know about the SDI psuedo science that qualifies you to snigger at my remarks ?
Want to talk physics ?
Gorbi didn't have his back to the wall in the military sense as you keep insisting. How few times do you think his ability to nuke you to dust would have to be before his back was to the wall ?
Sticking a picture of guns as an avatar is very immature.
It is ludicrous to claim US won cold war.
Only a certian kind of American that seems able to be quite so deluded & big headed. Usually the type that thinks it clever to point pictures of guns at people.
The cold war simply came to an end because of a process initiated by Gorbachov that had far more to do with the inherent failings of Communism than with anything the US did.

Frankly speaking, if it wasn't for Reagan, I think the USSR could very well still be around today. The reason for Glasnost and Periostrokia was primarily due to SDI. If their was no SDI, their likely would have been no Glasnost or Periostrokia. Their were serious economic problems before Gorbachev rose to power. But their would not have been the ambitious reforms of Gorbachev if it wasn't for a balanced Reagan policy and the SDI program. These reforms were a gamble the Soviet Empire made and they assumed risk with this gamble. If the gamble worked, they would be able to have an economy that ran efficiently to produce the wealth necessary to produce an SDI system for themselves and to keep up with US military spending, if not, then the US would eventually gain strategic superiority over the USSR and have a first capability against the USSR with no fear of retialiation. Reagan, had essientially spent the USSR out of existence. SDI was economic warfare against the Soviet Union. It squeezed the Soviet economy and accelerated the collapse of the USSR.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Yes. It was all in our imagination.

[poundingshoe]"Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!!"[/poundingshoe]
Nikita S Khrushchev
17 Nov 56

Actually I think I've heard that the translator screwed up. Kruschev said "we will leave you in the dust!" or something like that instead of "We will bury you".

 

[Comrade Brian]

It was the late 70s I think, and for a short period it was market liberalized and there was tremendous freedom there,

If I remember correctly, Brezhnev was the leader, and was noted for being quite repressive.

And the USSR didn't have much freedom ever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually I think I've heard that the translator screwed up. Kruschev said "we will leave you in the dust!" or something like that instead of "We will bury you".

Never heard that, and I sincerely doubt it.

One of my 400-level history courses was the History of Russia, with a young bohemian professor gorl who was very fluent in Russian. A dicussion of this line came up, after haveing been shown as parr of a presentation in class, and the alternate translation was never mentioned.

 

[Comrade Brian]

why did the soviets spend so much on it anyway?



We fear suitcase nukes now more than ever, I'm sure just the threat of soviet nuclear annilation was bad enough.

They were afraid of getting blown up, the US had more nukes than the USSR, until Brezhnev.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Never heard that, and I sincerely doubt it.

One of my 400-level history courses was the History of Russia, with a young bohemian professor gorl who was very fluent in Russian. A dicussion of this line came up, after haveing been shown as parr of a presentation in class, and the alternate translation was never mentioned.

I may be wrong, but I don't really know.

 

[robin]

This is, of course, an out-and-out lie.
Reagan offered 100% elimination. Gorby said no.

I said I wouldn't reply but since you call me a liar when it's you that is wrong because Gorbi most certainly did not refuse large reductions, I will make one last attempt to show you the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.
Gorbachov wanted to take things further than Reagan. He wanted to go for 50% of ALL missiles, not just strategic ones. But it all stalled because of Reagans insistance on keeping SDI.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_3732000/3732902.stm
"But the talks finally stalled over President Reagan's refusal to abandon his Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI)" & why ?
Because defense contracters had Raygun over a barrel. He had to insist to Gorbi on US keeping SDI or no more donations from SDI contracters to the Republican party.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/061300missile-defense.html
The opportunity to reduce the risk of you, me... our families, being put at risk of being fried alive or dying from some horrible radiation induced cancer in a nuclear holocaust, jeopardised just so the contracters that had Mr Raygun over a barrel, could keep their share prices up & the limos rolling !

Yet SDI was total & utter BS. How can you shoot down 6,000 Soviet missiles launched simultaneously when you can't even get anywhere near shooting down one if the missiles are coated with reflective materials ?
Alternatively to penetrate the missile surface there was some even more ludicrous science fiction idea of x ray lasers powered by nuclear bombs or reactors in space. Oh yeah lets have 10,000 nuclear bomb powered x ray lasers in space. Except better make it 20,000 as the hit ratio won't be anywhere near 100%.

You guys are so so naive. You are totally propagandised. It worries me actually how deluded so many Americans are. It's actually dangerous the way they have control of your minds.
The whole thing was propped up by career minded scientists & defense contracters concerned at dropping production levels of nuclear missiles.

"7 trillion borrowed for public welfare" !
BS you'd have a National Health Service like us if that had been spent on welfare. How much welfare is there from Iraq war & your massive arms bill running at a level as if the cold war is still on ?
So your not even reaping any rewards for Gorbi's ending of the cold war are you LOL

See #22... I said PICTURES of guns.

One other thing.. The British Navy found the enigma codes.. Not the US guy in the Hollywood film.
Got that children ? LOL


Reyjavic Summit
"Secretary General Gorbachev: Before I respond, Mr. President, at least briefly to your statement, and the numerous issues you have touched upon, I would like to ask a few questions for the purposes of clarification. As I understand, you share our goal of reducing strategic offensive missiles by 50 percent.

President Reagan: Yes.

Secretary General Gorbachev: At the same time if I understood you correctly, the figures you cited reflect options that were discussed in Geneva and which foresee a 30 percent reduction.

President Reagan: We proposed 6,000 units.

Secretary of State Shultz: This level would include 4,500 ballistic missile warheads and 1,500 air-launched cruise missiles.

Secretary General Gorbachev: Much has already been said about these options, and you know that the matter reached a dead end. Our diplomats in Geneva can go on discussing all of these figures, levels, sublevels, and son on forever. I have data here on American and Soviet strategic arms. I can give this table to you. And what I propose is this: Inasmuch as we agree that strategic missiles should be reduced by 50 percent, let's reduce all forms of armaments in our strategic arsenals by half -- ground-launched missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and missiles carried by strategic bombers. Thus the strategic arsenals would be reduced by 50 percent across the entire spectrum. The structure of our strategic arms evolved historically, you see, and with such a reduction, not one form of armament would be wronged, and the level of strategic confrontation would be reduced by 50 percent. This is a simple, proportionate solution, one which everyone will understand. And then all of these debates, which have now been going on for so many years, about levels, sublevels, what counts or what doesn't count, and so on, will be resolved automatically, since a 50 percent reduction is a 50 percent reduction. And there will be nothing to debate. Do you agree with such an approach?
President Reagan: But my proposal also includes all strategic weapons except freefall bombs carried by bombers. But even these are limited indirectly, since a limit is set on the number of bombers.

[...]

Secretary General Gorbachev: The next issue. Do I understand correctly that the U.S. President no longer likes the zero option he proposed regarding medium-range missiles?

President Reagan: No, I like it very much, but only with a global resolution of the issue. If the zero is on a global scale, then this would be fabulous. But if intermediate-range missiles are eliminated only in Europe, while a significant number of missiles aimed, in your words, at Asia will remain on your side, I could not agree to that. Your missiles could reach Europe from there, after all, and in addition, they could be moved suddenly to other places.

Secretary General Gorbachev: But you have nuclear weapons in South Korea as well, at bases, aboard forward-based weapon systems, not to mention other nuclear arms. Because you had earlier stated concerns regarding the nuclear arms situation in Europe, we also propose eliminating all medium-range missiles in Europe. As far as weapons systems with a range below 1,000 km are concerned, we propose freezing them and starting negotiations, and as for weapons in Asia, we also propose starting negotiations with the objective of finding a solution pertaining to these missiles in Asia, and consequently a solution pertaining to these missiles in Asia, and consequently a solution to the problem as a whole.

We have already opted to leave aside the strategic arsenals of Great Britain and France, and this is a concession on our side. Nor are we raising the issue of forward-based systems. Why has the United States not taken any steps in return? What we are now proposing, after all, is a simple solution: zero in Europe and negotiations in Asia.

[...]

Secretary General Gorbachev: But what I want to ask you, Mr. President, is this: If a solution is found for Asia, will you agree to the zero option?

President Reagan: Yes. We stationed them there at the request of our allies, which my predecessor accepted and which I implemented in response to your SS-20 missiles. As far as your missiles in Asia are concerned, I have seen maps from which it follows that while they can't hit England, they can hit France, West Germany, Central Europe, Greece and Turkey. Plus, the fact that they are mobile.

All of this emphasizes everything I discussed back in Geneva. Before we can work things out in regard to armaments, we need to try to clarify the causes of mistrust. If we are able to eliminate it, it will be easier to resolve the problem of armaments.

Secretary General Gorbachev: That's true. Which is why I am amazed that you dispute what I told you about our missiles in Asia. They cannot reach Europe. Specialists know this well, and therefore your position seems to be an obvious paradox. This is not to mention the fact that it could be stipulated precisely in an agreement that no missiles will be moved anywhere, and that everything will be subjected to the strictest inspection.

I think that we can instruct our experts to discuss your thoughts and my idea. But do I understand correctly? If a solution is found regarding Asia, will you agree to the zero option in Europe.

President Reagan: Yes.

[...]

Secretary General Gorbachev: As far as SDI is concerned, it is not evoking concern among us today in the military respect. We are not afraid of a three-echelon ABM system. If your laboratory research motivates you to create such a system, considering that obviously America has a great deal of money, our response will be different, asymmetrical. What actually troubles us is that it will be difficult for us to persuade our people and our allies as to the absence of the ABM treaty. There would be no logic in this, and nothing could be built on this basis.

President Reagan: We have absolutely no desire to eliminate the ABM treaty. This treaty is defensive, but you capitalized on its provisions to create a powerful defensive potential. We did not do this.

In this situation all we can say to the Americans is this: If the other side destroys us, we will destroy it. But people are not sleeping any easier for this. We propose supplementing the ABM Treaty with provisions on specific defensive weapons being created not for a first strike or to obtain advantages. We want this to be available to all the world.

Secretary General Gorbachev: We will not deploy SDI. We have another concept.

 

[robin]

Contd'
President Reagan: We do not intend to eliminate the ABM Treaty.

[...]

President Reagan: A couple of words in conclusion. You said that you don't need SDI, but then we would be able to carry out our programs in parallel, and if you find that you have something a little better, than perhaps you could share it with us.

Secretary General Gorbachev: Excuse me, Mr. President, but I do not take your idea of sharing SDI seriously. You don't want to share even petroleum equipment, automatic machine tools or equipment for dairies, while sharing SDI would be a second American Revolution. And revolutions do not occur all that often. Let's be realistic and pragmatic. That's more reliable.

President Reagan: If I thought that SDI could not be shared, I would have rejected it myself.

16 October 1986 - Morning

[...]

Secretary General Gorbachev: We know that you plan to deploy SDI. But we do not have such plans. And we cannot assume an obligation relative to such a transition. We have a different conception.

Secretary of State Shultz: I would like to mention also the third question, which we included because you emphasize it so much. This is the situation which would exist until the time when the conditions indicated above were realized. The question is: what general understanding can the parties reach relative to the restrictions imposed by the ABM Treaty on activity related to creating a long-range strategic defense?

The President stated to you and the whole world that he will not renounce the SDI program. You do not agree with that. But as I understand it, you recognize his problem and that he is trying to meet your concern half-way.

Secretary General Gorbachev: But I think that I am even helping the president with SDI. After all, your people say that if Gorbachev attacks SDI and space weapons so much, it means the idea deserves more respect. They even say that if it were not for me, no one would listen to the idea at all. And some even claim that I want to drag the United States into unnecessary expenditures with this. But if the first ones are right, then I am on your side in this matter, but you have not appreciated it.

President Reagan: What the hell use will ABM's or anything else be if we eliminate nuclear weapons?

Secretary General Gorbachev: Absolutely right. I am for that. But the point is that under the ABM Treaty the parties do not have a large-scale antimissile defense, and you want to deploy such a defense.

President Reagan: But what difference does it make if it is not nuclear weapons? What difference whether it exists or not?

On the other hand, you know that even in this situation we will not be able to guarantee that someone will not begin to make nuclear weapons again at some point.

Secretary General Gorbachev: Mr. President, you just made a historic statement: What the hell use will SDI be if we eliminate nuclear weapons? But it is exactly because we are moving toward a reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons that I favor strengthening the ABM Treaty. In these conditions it becomes even more important. As for your arguments about the madman who decides to resort to nuclear weapons, I think that we will be able to solve that problem, it is not that serious.

President Reagan: It appears that the point is that I am the oldest man here. And I understand that after the war the nations decided that they would renounce poison gases. But thank God the gas mask continued to exist. Something similar can happen with nuclear weapons. And we will have to shield against them in any case.

Secretary General Gorbachev: I am increasingly convinced of something I knew previously only second-hand. The President of the United States does not like to retreat. I see now that you do not want to meet us half-way on the issue of the ABM Treaty, which is absolutely essential in conditions where we are undertaking large reductions in nuclear arms, and you do not want to begin negotiations on stopping nuclear testing. So I see that the possibilities of agreement are exhausted. "

 

[robin]

Minor correction

Gorbachov wanted to take things further than Reagan. He wanted to go for 50% of ALL missiles, not just strategic ones. But it all stalled because of Reagans insistence on keeping SDI.

Should read..
Gorbachov wanted to take things further than Reagan. He wanted to go for 50% of ALL forms of strategic missiles. But it all stalled because of Reagans insistence on keeping SDI.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said I wouldn't reply but since you call me a liar when it's you that is wrong because Gorbi most certainly did not refuse large reductions, I will make one last attempt to show you the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth.

Gorby walked away from the offer Reagan made, which was to eliminate all strategic nuclear arms. Period.

From your source:

President Reagan: What the hell use will ABM's or anything else be if we eliminate nuclear weapons?

President Reagan: But what difference does it make if it is not nuclear weapons? What difference whether it exists or not?

Secretary General Gorbachev: I am increasingly convinced of something I knew previously only second-hand. The President of the United States does not like to retreat. I see now that you do not want to meet us half-way on the issue of the ABM Treaty, which is absolutely essential in conditions where we are undertaking large reductions in nuclear arms, and you do not want to begin negotiations on stopping nuclear testing. So I see that the possibilities of agreement are exhausted. "

This is
-Reagan talking about 100% elimination
-Gorby walking away.
Thanks for the transcript proving my point.

Yet SDI was total & utter BS. How can you shoot down 6,000 Soviet missiles launched simultaneously when you can't even get anywhere near shooting down one if the missiles are coated with reflective materials ?

It scared the Russians. Clearly THEY thought it would work.
I guess they were just morons?

You guys are so so naive. You are totally propagandised.

Oh, and YOU arent. LOL

See #22... I said PICTURES of guns.

Yes. Pointing them at people.
"Usually the type that thinks it clever to point pictures of guns at people."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=128192&postcount=22
So, again - how do you point pictured of guns at people over the internet?

One other thing.. The British Navy found the enigma codes.. Not the US guy in the Hollywood film.
Got that children ? LOL

Which hollywood film is that?

 

[mikeey]

Teacher i like that,The bar has been raised and

closed

mikeey

 

[robin]

Gorby walked away from the offer Reagan made, which was to eliminate all strategic nuclear arms. Period.

From your source:

President Reagan: What the hell use will ABM's or anything else be if we eliminate nuclear weapons?

President Reagan: But what difference does it make if it is not nuclear weapons? What difference whether it exists or not?

Secretary General Gorbachev: I am increasingly convinced of something I knew previously only second-hand. The President of the United States does not like to retreat. I see now that you do not want to meet us half-way on the issue of the ABM Treaty, which is absolutely essential in conditions where we are undertaking large reductions in nuclear arms, and you do not want to begin negotiations on stopping nuclear testing. So I see that the possibilities of agreement are exhausted. "

This is
-Reagan talking about 100% elimination
-Gorby walking away.
Thanks for the transcript proving my point.

It scared the Russians. Clearly THEY thought it would work.
I guess they were just morons?

"Secretary General Gorbachev: But I think that I am even helping the president with SDI. After all, your people say that if Gorbachev attacks SDI and space weapons so much, it means the idea deserves more respect. They even say that if it were not for me, no one would listen to the idea at all. And some even claim that I want to drag the United States into unnecessary expenditures with this. But if the first ones are right, then I am on your side in this matter, but you have not appreciated it."Notice he says.. "but if the first ones are right"

Which hollywood film is that?

U-571
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/

The zero option was a hypothetical long term aim & both sides knew it was not truly on the table at Reyjavic.
1986: Reykjavik summit ends in failure
US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev have failed to reach agreement at a disarmament summit in Reykjavik.
The two men came close to striking a radical arms reduction deal after a weekend of lengthy negotiations at Hofdi House in the Icelandic capital.

Who is to blame ? Looks very definitely like Reagan was to me. He went on about.. If there are less & less missiles then star wars isn't needed, yet he scuppered the talks by his insistance on keeping them !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_3732000/3732902.stm
1986: Reykjavik summit ends in failure
"US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev have failed to reach agreement at a disarmament summit in Reykjavik.
The two men came close to striking a radical arms reduction deal after a weekend of lengthy negotiations at Hofdi House in the Icelandic capital.

But the talks finally stalled over President Reagan's refusal to abandon his Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI).

Disappointment

The White House spokesman, Larry Speake said, "We had high hopes and we came very close to realising them but in the end we are deeply disappointed at the outcome."

After the summit, Mr Gorbachev said that he had told President Reagan, "We are missing an historic chance. Never had our positions been so close together."

Before flying back to Washington, President Reagan said:

"We moved towards agreement on drastically reduced numbers of intermediate-range missiles in both Europe and Asia and sharply reducing our strategic arsenals for both."

"We made progress in the area of nuclear testing, but there was remaining at the end of our talks one area of disagreement."

This was the American SDI programme - also known as Star Wars - a series of networked satellites intended to protect the USA from foreign missile attacks."

 

[Old and wise]

BS. Reagan kicked in the door of a shaky house, and it collapsed.

Raygun didn't have the brains to kick his own ass unless Nancy was there to help him.:rofl

 

[teacher]

Raygun didn't have the brains to kick his own ass unless Nancy was there to help him.:rofl

He was smart enough to figure out communism was a bad thing and surround hisself with the right people to deal with it. I think he was simple in the way that he didn't get bogged down with clutter and his gift was he was able to convey that to the public. He saw things as black and white. Like W.

Evil empire; Evil doers.

I agree.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

To be honest I think that the Soviet Union would have collapsed, regardless of Reagan's rheotoric, or if America had voted in an isolationist President during the 1980's.

I say this because I truely believe that statist/highly regulated economies are always doomed to fail. Secondly, the Soviet Union had turned a fair bit of its economy to be purely focused on its millitary complex. Problem is, only third world nations were interested in the USSR's main source of economic dollars.

Come on who would have ever bought Soviet made Lada Neva's? Or orther Soviet made non-millitary goods. Sure they may have been crude and simple, but their build quality was crap. That meant that Soviet commercial products were largely bought by Soviet Citizens, not the rest of the people of the world.

My point is, that communism fails because their is no incentive to produce products that are of a high standard, the state produces everything, so there is no competition. Competition leads to excellence....

The USSR's economic policies would be fine, if the Soviet Union was the only nation on the planet, but when you need to earn money from exports, statist/collectivist economic policy is always going to produce inferior products that knowone else wants to buy. So your country goes bankrupt!

Simple!

Soviet economic decline was evident even before the Reagan administration. Reagan understood that the Soviet Union was bleeding badly, he just outspended them millitarily, resulting in an excelleration of the process.

I liken Reagan's dealings with the Soviets as a chemical catalyst. The chemical reaction (Ie the disintergration of the USSR) was always going to happen. But the catalyst (Reagans millitary spending) merely sped up that inevitable chemical reaction.

Communist economics are always doomed to fail. Refer to China, they know what I am talking about! :mrgreen:

 

[Comrade Brian]

He saw things as black and white. Like W.

Evil empire; Evil doers.

I agree.

When he saw things as back-and-white, it shows how stupid he is, the world is grey!

Many would say the US is an evil empire.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Communist economics are always doomed to fail. Refer to China, they know what I am talking about! :mrgreen:

How does China relate to Communist economics?

And anyways, China is rapidly becoming the new superpower, the US is declining.

 

[Old and wise]

When he saw things as back-and-white, it shows how stupid he is, the world is grey!

He was not only stupid, he was also color blind.:lol:

 

[Comrade Brian]

He was not only stupid, he was also color blind.:lol:

Indeed he was.

Old and Wise, I do find you to be quite wise from the posts I've seen.

 

[robin]

Evil empire; Evil doers.
I agree.

Are you referring to Reagan's support of right death squads in Nicaragua ?

You never replied to #18 on 'terrorist attack on Israel'.

For sure Reagan did not end the cold war.
Gorbachov ended it with Glasnost & Peristroika because he realised communism mean't economic failure. Communist economies fail to stimulate markets on supply & production & enterprise etc etc... we all know the reasons. So the failures of the Soviet communist economy in a way brought about its' own demise & thus the end of the cold war.
Communism ended communism if you like.
I can't believe the arrogance of Americans who think they can take credit for ending the cold war & who can even think the question "How did the USA win the cold war???" is even askable !!!!!
They can take credit for maintaining a military balance, but not for ending the cold war. Gorbachov did that.
If there had been more Andropovs & Breshnevs the cold war could have dragged on for decades.

 

[128shot]

I agree that the USSR would have died.



What if they focused on their economy though ? semi-liberalized economy could have competed with us...

idealogical problems is the real problem with the USSR

 

[robin]

I agree that the USSR would have died.

What if they focused on their economy though ? semi-liberalized economy could have competed with us...

idealogical problems is the real problem with the USSR

Who knows the US economic empire may die. You now owe $7 trillion to foreign creditors & what do you make ?
ALL empires come to an end eventually.
As for Soviet idealogy, it takes generations to change a culture.
I'm sure the young there prefer the freedoms they now have. I just hope the country doesn't descend to be under total mafia type control where a few powerful combined business men & politicians control everything.
All they need is a few Cheneys & Rumsfelds for that to happen :lol:

 

[Comrade Brian]

I can't believe the arrogance of Americans who think they can take credit for ending the cold war & who can even think the question "How did the USA win the cold war???" is even askable !!!!!
They can take credit for maintaining a military balance, but not for ending the cold war. Gorbachov did that.

Yes many Americans think they won the cold war, but there were way too many factors to say one thing did it.

Americans are often ignorant of this fact because I've noticed a lot of media saying it too.