Interesting Read on the ignored significance of 1989

#26
#26
BigPapaVol said:
But fighting over third world countries doesn't propose any catastrophic style risk to our nation.
Click to expand...


You don't think that a single nuclear explosion in, say, Washington, or maybe New York, wiping out either government or the financial district, wouldn't spin us into an economic catastrophe?
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
You don't think that a single nuclear explosion in, say, Washington, or maybe New York, wiping out either government or the financial district, wouldn't spin us into an economic catastrophe?
Click to expand...
It would, but doesn't threaten our sovereignty. In fact, it would plunge the world into the economic abyss, hence essentially maintain the status quo.
 
#28
#28
But this money tends to boost the economy, rather than hurt it. G is still a huge component of the GDP equation.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with this totally, but the magnitude of cost difference will eventually start to reach diminishing returns. Especially with the longer the conflict goes. I simply can't see insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan completely giving up, ever. In Afghanistan they didn't against the Soviets, and there is no reason to think they would now.

But the point is that there is no real risk to our nation. It is tougher to control rogues and suitcase bombs, but they are more pesky than anything. You act as if these guys weren't going to come this direction with the Soviets still around. I don't believe that for a second. They are bent on exporting radical Islam and we were going to meet up about it at some point.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your first statement, and I'm sure anybody in New York city on 9/11/01 would as well. Even from a national standpoint, the 9/11 attacks had significant economic impact. The suitcase bombs are only pesky now because it hasn't happened. The real danger is evident in what your saying, because the general thinking is a single person with a suitcase bomb doesn't seem imposing, but if we were to awake to a new sun rising on the port of Los Angeles, iopinions would change very quick. The problem is it would be too late at that point.

And I absolutely believe, and least with the current conflicts we are fighting, the enemy combatants would have never thought to attack us. The Iraqi's and Al Queda? We supported them, why would they attack the hand that feeds them? This gets back to my whole point of using them as proxies. In a cold war situation with two superpowers, everybody is forced to pick a side and fall in line. IMO, this creates a far more stable world because the superpowers controlling everything can ultimately be trusted to act in the own best interest. Now, we can't control anything (at least not as easily) and we don't know who wants to do what and how they want to do it to us.
 
#29
#29
To argue the world is safer is a losing game because the word "safer" is far too vague. As BPV points out, economic safety is an important perspective as is sovereignty safety. As I've pointed out, individuals also derive feelings of safety from their own particular situation. I would imagine folks behind the old Iron Curtain feel safer today than they did prior to the late 80s.

The political-economy theory "Hegemonic Stability Theory" argues that the world is more stable with one Hegemon (the situation since the fall of the USSR) than with 2 or more competing for control. While not universally accepted, HST is a well respected theory and points directly away from the claim that the world was safer when the U.S. and USSR were battling for dominance.
 
#30
#30
I still think it can be reasonably argued that our sovereign and economic safety is still in danger post cold war, even more so in some respects.
 
#31
#31
rjd970 said:
I still think it can be reasonably argued that our sovereign and economic safety is still in danger post cold war, even more so in some respects.
Click to expand...

Still in danger? Yes. In more danger because the USSR fell? I just don't buy it.

HST would argue that world stability will worsen with the rise of a second hegemon (in our case, China). (unless of course we decline from hegemon status) The distinction between China and USSR though is that the dominant economic policy is still capitalism. The situation was less stable when 2 distinct economic systems (capitalism and central planning) were competing.
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
Still in danger? Yes. In more danger because the USSR fell? I just don't buy it.

HST would argue that world stability will worsen with the rise of a second hegemon (in our case, China). (unless of course we decline from hegemon status) The distinction between China and USSR though is that the dominant economic policy is still capitalism. The situation was less stable when 2 distinct economic systems (capitalism and central planning) were competing.
Click to expand...

Well, like you said, HST isn't universally accepted, and there is a reason for that.

I would argue that the asymmetric threat is more dangerous for previously stated reasons, shown by the fact that they have attacked US soil twice and created economic impact by not only the attacks themselves, but by the overextension of our resources abroad.

China's rise as a threat is cheifly economic because they have adopted a model that works. From a sovereign standpoint I don't know how one can argue they are more of a threat than the asymmetric threats we are currently facing...primarily flowed from the fact that when it comes down to it, China will ultimately act in its best self-interest. Taiwan hasn't been attacked for a reason, and I don't think it is because China is practicing self-restraint on its own.
 
#33
#33
rjd970 said:
Well, like you said, HST isn't universally accepted, and there is a reason for that.

I would argue that the asymmetric threat is more dangerous for previously stated reasons, shown by the fact that they have attacked US soil twice and created economic impact by not only the attacks themselves, but by the overextension of our resources abroad.

China's rise as a threat is cheifly economic because they have adopted a model that works. From a sovereign standpoint I don't know how one can argue they are more of a threat than the asymmetric threats we are currently facing...primarily flowed from the fact that when it comes down to it, China will ultimately act in its best self-interest. Taiwan hasn't been attacked for a reason, and I don't think it is because China is practicing self-restraint on its own.
Click to expand...


Patrolling boomers off their shore line doesn't hurt.
 
#34
#34
Asymmetric threat, as you guys put it, is lower intensity but harder to predict and therefore harder to defend against. People are nuts if they think one day we are going to be able to stand up and say, ok, war on terror is over.

It will never be over.

Have to do the best we can to find and eliminate the real threats, be that individual organizers, the sites for preparing people to commit these acts, or the sources of financial and other support.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
Still in danger? Yes. In more danger because the USSR fell? I just don't buy it.

HST would argue that world stability will worsen with the rise of a second hegemon (in our case, China). (unless of course we decline from hegemon status) The distinction between China and USSR though is that the dominant economic policy is still capitalism. The situation was less stable when 2 distinct economic systems (capitalism and central planning) were competing.
Click to expand...


I mostly agree with this. I think the rise of radical and violent Islamic terrorism would have occured, anyway. Now, is it possible that the presence of a strong Soviet Union would have created opportunities to deal with it? Maybe. But weighed against the demise of the Soviet military, I think its a trade we have to be willing to make.
 
#39
#39
Our biggest fear about the USSR break up is the relatively low security personal around their nuclear sites.

Frankly, it is frightening beyond belief.

For a million bucks you can buy a suit case nuke.
 
#40
#40
There were 13 terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the 80s alone. The notion that asymmetric threat was somehow muted when the USSR was in power is over stated. Countries that hated us or them were not uniformly lined up and under the control of the 2 super powers.
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
There were 13 terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the 80s alone. The notion that asymmetric threat was somehow muted when the USSR was in power is over stated. Countries that hated us or them were not uniformly lined up and under the control of the 2 super powers.
Click to expand...

On US soil, by Islamic fundamentalists?
 
#43
#43
rjd970 said:
On US soil, by Islamic fundamentalists?
Click to expand...

Most by Islamic fundamentalists. None on U.S. soil but not sure how the USSR stopped that.

There have been 2 on US soil total (by IF) - are you telling me that are a result of the fall of the USSR?

The first attempt on the WTTs was in the early nineties - did the fall of the USSR suddenly make that possible? No.

Islamic fundamentalism is not a result of the fall of the USSR.

Again I go back to the core issue. The notion of "safer" is so vague that one can't say for sure that we are safer or less safe as a result of the fall of the USSR. There are anecdotal bits of info to apply to one side or the other but it's pure speculation to make a claim one way or the other.

Given nuke tensions in our early history with the USSR, I'd bet we came closer to world destruction then than we are now.
 
#45
#45
Don't forget Europe, Italy was stricken with terrorism in the 70's.

We should all learn from the SAS, once engaged, kill every last one of them.
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
Most by Islamic fundamentalists. None on U.S. soil but not sure how the USSR stopped that.

There have been 2 on US soil total (by IF) - are you telling me that are a result of the fall of the USSR?

The first attempt on the WTTs was in the early nineties - did the fall of the USSR suddenly make that possible? No.

Islamic fundamentalism is not a result of the fall of the USSR.

Again I go back to the core issue. The notion of "safer" is so vague that one can't say for sure that we are safer or less safe as a result of the fall of the USSR. There are anecdotal bits of info to apply to one side or the other but it's pure speculation to make a claim one way or the other.

Given nuke tensions in our early history with the USSR, I'd bet we came closer to world destruction then than we are now.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it is a result of the USSR, I am saying those attacks would have never happened during the Cold War. Given what OBL has stated as hatred for the US (primarily US military bases in the ME) I can't see Desert Shield ever happening because during the cold war we supported Iraq as a buffer against Iran, which was indirectly supported by the USSR to wage Jihad against the US because of Israeli support. Again, after the USSR failed, Iran was no longer the threat it was and Iraq wasn't needed anymore. A vacuum is created, Iraq is without US support and decides to invade Kuwait, and we are forced to intervene. Now we have military bases in Saudi Arabia, OBL doesn't like it and has support fresh from his US backed victory against the Soviets, and we have now two enemies (Iraq and OBL) who were former allies, wanting nothing but US destruction.

So I still contend as long as were supporting Iraq and OBL to fight a common enemy, we don't need to worry about them attacking. Without that common enemy it created a vacuum and we got WTT attacks.

I think you are overlooking the complexity of how the cold war worked and oversimplifying things by saying the fall of the USSR didn't cause the WTT attacks.
 
#49
#49
rjd970 said:
I'm not saying it is a result of the USSR, I am saying those attacks would have never happened during the Cold War. Given what OBL has stated as hatred for the US (primarily US military bases in the ME) I can't see Desert Shield ever happening because during the cold war we supported Iraq as a buffer against Iran, which was indirectly supported by the USSR to wage Jihad against the US because of Israeli support. Again, after the USSR failed, Iran was no longer the threat it was and Iraq wasn't needed anymore. A vacuum is created, Iraq is without US support and decides to invade Kuwait, and we are forced to intervene. Now we have military bases in Saudi Arabia, OBL doesn't like it and has support fresh from his US backed victory against the Soviets, and we have now two enemies (Iraq and OBL) who were former allies, wanting nothing but US destruction.

So I still contend as long as were supporting Iraq and OBL to fight a common enemy, we don't need to worry about them attacking. Without that common enemy it created a vacuum and we got WTT attacks.

I think you are overlooking the complexity of how the cold war worked and oversimplifying things by saying the fall of the USSR didn't cause the WTT attacks.
Click to expand...

If we go this route, then after the fall of the USSR the question became, why provoke the sole remaining superpower? Is the US comparable to the USSR? After all, the latter was attacked in Afghanistan at the nadir of its power.

The US sought to control Eurasia to prevent a Russian resurgence and to maintain their global dominance.

During the breakup of the USSR, Muslims were used as a new tool to thwart post communist Russia so that it couldn’t return to regional ascendancy. It fell to the mujahids to confront the global power imbalance. They had not liberated Afghanistan to see one hegemon be replaced by another.

This does not mean that alQaeda wants to fight all enemies at the same time. They wish to neutralize some enemies before others.

The essence of the US’s problem is that it arrived at its global dominance prematurely, before it was capable of handling it. Its body developed before its brain was capable of handling its new capabilities.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attempt to hurt the US economy, even if the strike caused enormous damage. It was a symbolic, ideological strike that has sought to accelerate the decline of America.

:hi:
 
#50
#50
OrangeEmpire said:
If we go this route, then after the fall of the USSR the question became, why provoke the sole remaining superpower? Is the US comparable to the USSR? After all, the latter was attacked in Afghanistan at the nadir of its power.

The US sought to control Eurasia to prevent a Russian resurgence and to maintain their global dominance.

During the breakup of the USSR, Muslims were used as a new tool to thwart post communist Russia so that it couldn’t return to regional ascendancy. It fell to the mujahids to confront the global power imbalance. They had not liberated Afghanistan to see one hegemon be replaced by another.

This does not mean that alQaeda wants to fight all enemies at the same time. They wish to neutralize some enemies before others.

The essence of the US’s problem is that it arrived at its global dominance prematurely, before it was capable of handling it. Its body developed before its brain was capable of handling its new capabilities.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attempt to hurt the US economy, even if the strike caused enormous damage. It was a symbolic, ideological strike that has sought to accelerate the decline of America.

:hi:
Click to expand...

I think you are underestimating the hatred for US foreign policy in the ME which was set aside for the sake of settling old scores and religious differences during the cold war. Also the fact that you are assuming the rogue elements of the ME think rationally when they attack the US. Why attack the remaining superpower? Because you have a reason to and don't particularly care what they do to you in return.

I think your last paragraph isn't completely accurate. OBL has said all along he wanted to draw America into a prolonged insurgency quagmire which would have direct economic and military impact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top