Start of the Cold War: The Marshall Plan or Soviets' exploding first atomic bomb

[cupper]

If any country were to allow WMD's to fall into the hands of terrorists' the entire world would want their head on a platter. I'm certain if it were to happen it would have already. I like to think the FSB, CIA, MI6, and all the other intelligence agencies in the world have a uniform interest in making sure no one obtains such weapons.

Never overestimate the value of self preservation as a motivator.

 

[a_majoor]

Pakistan is already playing both sides of the nuclear fence. It is widely suspected that they have been passing secrets from their nuclear arms research to Iran (as a powerful neighbour right on their border, this is probably not too surprising); while Saudi Arabia has broadly hinted that they will be able to acquire a nuclear arsenal from Pakistan if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia also has a great deal of clout, being a huge supplier of foreign aid to Pakistan, and can certainly "buy" the skills and expertise needed.

And Pakistan also has their own nuclear neighbour on the other border; India is certainly not noted for playing nice if their interests are being threatened, so their nuclear threshold is probably a lot lower than would be desirable under normal circumstances (and India's "Cold Start" nuclear weapons policy is not something to make people sleep well at night either).

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Pakistan is already playing both sides of the nuclear fence. It is widely suspected that they have been passing secrets from their nuclear arms research to Iran (as a powerful neighbour right on their border, this is probably not too surprising); while Saudi Arabia has broadly hinted that they will be able to acquire a nuclear arsenal from Pakistan if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia also has a great deal of clout, being a huge supplier of foreign aid to Pakistan, and can certainly "buy" the skills and expertise needed.

And Pakistan also has their own nuclear neighbour on the other border; India is certainly not noted for playing nice if their interests are being threatened, so their nuclear threshold is probably a lot lower than would be desirable under normal circumstances (and India's "Cold Start" nuclear weapons policy is not something to make people sleep well at night either).

You guys may be onto something as Obama was once asked what country keeps him up at night and he responded: "Pakistan". I think for many like myself who didn't grow up during the Cold War the idea of WMD's are like a relic. I think many people nowadays are so used to the idea of "lone wolves" or "soft targets" that the idea of an organization such as al-Qaeda or ISIS obtaining dirty bombs or the like are straight out of a movie and unlikely. Truth be told, the more I think about it the more I remember many people never expecting airplanes to be used as weapons again (Pearl Harbor) but sure enough 9/11 proved them wrong

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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

I don't think he acted alone and represents a group that believe in the "Sunni Muslim Bomb". I don't believe he would willingly help the Iranians as they would be considered to great a threat.

 

[Brasidas]

Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is going to be looked at as a reason to acquire and stockpile nukes.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to others threatening your interests. Ukraine agreed not to be a nuclear power because Russia promised not to mess with it. Since unbacked promises were less than effective, and Russia might not have changed the borders in its favour if it was risking a nuclear response, countries may be less receptive to anti-nuclear rhetoric. Iran and Saudi Arabia say hello.

The nuclear age is not over.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is going to be looked at as a reason to acquire and stockpile nukes.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to others threatening your interests. Ukraine agreed not to be a nuclear power because Russia promised not to mess with it. Since unbacked promises were less than effective, and Russia might not have changed the borders in its favour if it was risking a nuclear response, countries may be less receptive to anti-nuclear rhetoric. Iran and Saudi Arabia say hello.

The nuclear age is not over.

The nuclear bomb as a deterrent is ever present and will have a new chapter when Middle Eastern countries acquire them but the likelihood of them being used as weapons is unlikely. Several of the posters here have written about their time in the CAF during the Cold War where tactics, equipment and actual units were built around the idea of them being used. As far as I know this doesn't happen anymore, not just in the Canadian Forces, but in other armed forces.

 

[Brasidas]

The nuclear bomb as a deterrent is ever present and will have a new chapter when Middle Eastern countries acquire them but the likelihood of them being used as weapons is unlikely. Several of the posters here have written about their time in the CAF during the Cold War where tactics, equipment and actual units were built around the idea of them being used. As far as I know this doesn't happen anymore, not just in the Canadian Forces, but in other armed forces.

We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.

You're right and I apologize. I am speaking out of school with regards to what the CAF teaches and doesn't.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Why was the USSR not able to capitalize on its energy resources during the 80's to sustain itself? It seems like oil is the main export for the country and given that oil was as important during the 80's as today if the USSR had capitalized would it still be here today?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Poor internal management.

One thing I have noted that with the exception of Israel, nuclear armed foes generally continue on their conflicts with proxy's as the risks become to high with nuclear weapons.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

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

I don't think he acted alone and represents a group that believe in the "Sunni Muslim Bomb". I don't believe he would willingly help the Iranians as they would be considered to great a threat.

AQ Khan is someone I am learning about now; I watched a documentary about him recently. People like him, moreso than Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, scares me

 

[a_majoor]

Why was the USSR not able to capitalize on its energy resources during the 80's to sustain itself? It seems like oil is the main export for the country and given that oil was as important during the 80's as today if the USSR had capitalized would it still be here today?

In the 80's, the USSR was still seen as a threat, and President Reagan strove mightily to prevent the Europeans from becoming dependent on Russian gas. The USSR was also caught in a price collapse in the 1980's as well (on Albertans can fill you in on), which cratered the budget for the Russians and essentially started the house of cards collapsing.

Since the fall of the wall, Russia was initially seen as a partner, and oil and gas exports were encouraged. Then the "Green" movement and "Climate Change" became a sort of religion in Germany and other parts of Europe, so coal and nuclear was set aside. Since "Green" energy sources are expensive, intermittent and low energy density, the demand for Russian gas exploded. Everyone seemed to get along happily, until Vladimir Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, which may be seen in the future as the start of Cold War II. Mitt Romney wasn't psychic, he just had a foreign affairs advisor team which actually read and interpreted the news.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

In the 80's, the USSR was still seen as a threat, and President Reagan strove mightily to prevent the Europeans from becoming dependent on Russian gas. The USSR was also caught in a price collapse in the 1980's as well (on Albertans can fill you in on), which cratered the budget for the Russians and essentially started the house of cards collapsing.

Since the fall of the wall, Russia was initially seen as a partner, and oil and gas exports were encouraged. Then the "Green" movement and "Climate Change" became a sort of religion in Germany and other parts of Europe, so coal and nuclear was set aside. Since "Green" energy sources are expensive, intermittent and low energy density, the demand for Russian gas exploded. Everyone seemed to get along happily, until Vladimir Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, which may be seen in the future as the start of Cold War II. Mitt Romney wasn't psychic, he just had a foreign affairs advisor team which actually read and interpreted the news.

Do you feel America is in the same position in terms of global opinion and strength (military, economy) now as it was during let's say, the Reagan administration? Given how the last ten years have treated America with the Iraq war, financial crisis, debt and the rise of China and India I'd say America would be in a tougher spot should it engage Moscow in a Cold War type situation. With Russia turning East as the West shuns her I feel like this time America along with her allies will be facing a three headed dragon (India, China, Russia) this time rather than a singular one

 

[a_majoor]

Given the bad relations between India and China, an engaged and adroit Administration could find some leverage to bring India on board with the Anglosphere project as a minimum. And given the increasingly crappy "customer service" India is receiving from Russia on various co development projects (look at the Aircraft carrier which was plagued with long delays and cost overruns, or the PAK-FA fighter), there are some opportunities to ease India away from that relationship as well.

Givven India's potential relationship with the Anglosphere group of nations (and honourary Anglosphere members like the Netherlands and Japan), as well as India's position as a maritime nation rather than a continental one, this job may have to fall on the rest of the Anglosphere nations (either as a coordinated plan, or just everyone pulling in the same direction as they attempt to engage India as a powerful trade partner), rather than wait until 2017 when the decks are cleared and American can start the long process of repair and reconstruction.

 

[VinceW]

The Cold war was started by the Soviets when they first started taking over countries under their control Soviet fanboys and apologists like to say it was because of the US Marshall plan but events like that happened after the Soviets were being the aggressors in Eastern Europe.

 

[Harrigan]

I would suggest the Cold War happened well prior to the Marshall Plan and the Soviet bomb.  Once the Allies realized that Germany was on the run and would eventually be defeated, they were all looking ahead to the post-war situation.  If I had to pick a specific event, I would vote for the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.

There certainly is "an actual unit", so the threat is considered to be possible.

However, I wouldn't say that the "CAF" is able to "operate" in a CBRN environment, (other than the "unit" mentioned).  For the rest, it is mostly about surviving an event, not operating in that environment.  Two very different beasts.

Harrigan

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Was NATO capable of winning a military victory over the Warsaw Pact? I look at The Korean War and Vietnam as major military victories for the Communists while Cuba as a political one. When looking at proxy wars where the US and the USSR supported opposing sides like Iran-Iraq War even then a stalemate was had. I look at the Soviet-Afghan War as being one which the Soviets were gonna lose anyway, regardless of American support of the Mujahadeen.

I leave it to you guys as to whether I am incorrect in my assertion that NATO couldn't beat the Warsaw Pact pound for pound in a war.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Was NATO capable of winning a military victory over the Warsaw Pact?  . . .

I leave it to you guys as to whether I am incorrect in my assertion that NATO couldn't beat the Warsaw Pact pound for pound in a war.

The best waged wars are those in which neither side fires a shot.  I would assert that we (the military, NATO we) already proved that we won a military victory over them.  Is the Warsaw Pact still in existence?

Yes, I know that you're talking about a probable slug-out in pitched battle, but war (the continuation of politics by other means) isn't a bare-knuckles match.  Outcomes are not necessarily measured by the blood drawn.

 

[LeonK]

Never knew that happened. So Gouzenko was a defector? Interesting

Ditto, I didn't know either. I'm going to have to look at this more, really interesting.