Which was worse: cold or terrorist war?

  1. This question is geared more to the folks who can remember the cold war, and it's impact on our American society. I am old enough to remember the siren drills and covering under desks in grade school. Today, there is a war, and there is massive fear like in the cold war, and I wonder if anyone wants to say which war seems worse.

    During our cold war with the old Soviet Union, the idea was that they would shoot hydrogen bombs at most American cities. Folks built bomb shelters, and I have seen several military installations where the walls were 3 ft thick granite, so I know people really thought one country might destroy another. But not everyone was scared, and some may have considered nuclear winter unthinkable.

    Today, it's not the Soviet Union we are at war with. It's with people who are opposed to our American influence. 9-11 ushered America into the war on terrorism, and so far we haven't been attacked again, yet, there is still lots of talk about WMD. Safe rooms, gas, chemical, dirty bomb....all weight on our minds as we live day to day.

    I would have to say the Cold War was scarier than the war on terrorism of today because of the magnitude of nuclear weapons.
    •  
  2. 14 Comments

  3. by   SmilingBluEyes
    WAS??? funny word choice Mario.....Consider:

    This is the way I have understood things from reading and listening to news programs; Russia was working WITH Hussein on many things, covertly---- as were other nations. So much for the "end of the cold war"...............

    and the War on Terrorism is alive and well (NOT A "WAS") and will be a fact of life the world over, long after you and I are gone.
    Last edit by SmilingBluEyes on Apr 15, '03
  4. by   mario_ragucci
    Originally posted by SmilingBluEyes
    Russia was working WITH Hussein on many things, covertly----
    I wouldn't doubt Russia has a few capitalist interests with Iraq, as America does, but I'll have to do some research about whether the Soviet Union worked with the Iraqi regime. I believe many Arab countries despised the Soviet Union, as America did, because of ideology. When America was a war with the Soviet Union during the cold war, America pretty much hooked up any military action against the Soviet Union with weapons and missles.

    Still, the fear of death for the general American population was greater, in my opinion, during the 60's and 70's, because of the actual nuclear tests that were being conducted at that time, and the size of Russia. And now it seems we have terrorism licked, or contained, and America has demonstrated the willingness to combat the threat. No American foe/terrorist has nuclear weapons today, unlike during the cold war.
  5. by   SmilingBluEyes
    No foe has nukes ????....

    umm Korea has nukes pointed right smack dab where I live as we speak mario. (seattle area).... I consider them a "foe" and am kinda uncomfortable w/the current situation there. Did you forget KOREA when you made your statement??????????????????? Or are they not "foes"?
  6. by   mario_ragucci
    Why would Korea want to bomb the Pike Place Market, or Elliot Bay? What would Korea gain by disturbing Queen Anne Hill, or Volunteer Park? They could be just fed up with their situation with the North and South division.

    Hstorically, the "Fear Factor" during the Korean War in the 50's was high, and i feel the US ilitary was prepared to use nuclear weapons on the north Koreans and Chinese if that conflict got out of hand. More cold war action.

    Plus at this time, i feel the US is very good at tracking missles. Also, I believe the US can look down at any country from space and see whats going on. Seattle won't be hit while there is over-the-horizon radar and satelites with look-down abilities. Of course, the West Coast is protected against incoming balistic missles like a big dog. Having the Soviet Union as an enemy was worse because, a country with that many nukes, could launch many at the same time. People really feared all out nuclear war.

    Up in Blaine, WA, there is a youth hostile at an old US Air Forse base that was antiquated. Lot's of buildings that were abandon, and the place was used during the 50's as a radar/tracking station. I can't remember the name of the place, but I got to ride my bike to one building that was deserted. That was the first time I ever saw a hardened building. It really dawned on me how serious nuclear was is when I saw how strong this building was made, and it was in the middle of no-where on the WA Coast. Some folks felt very strongly that the Soviet Union would try to blast that place with a nuke, obviously, and it was so important to keep that site going they made the building that strong. It angered me in my heart to think anyone would think a nuclear detonation could occur in such a beautiful place, and the fort in Blaine proved to me that, yes, there was a time when people actually feared THAT much.
  7. by   fergus51
    According to news reports I thought NK would not have the capability to reach the mainland US for a few years.

    I think the war on terrorism is worse because we aren't as naively trusting as we were before.
  8. by   sbic56
    Originally posted by fergus51


    I think the war on terrorism is worse because we aren't as naively trusting as we were before.
    Good point. We really believed that stop, drop and cover BS in the '50's-'60's. We all just get a good chuckle out of some of the Homeland Security advice today. Got your plastic and duct tape? Are you being vigilant? (How in the world is one supposed to "be vigilant", anyway?)

    Once again, perception is everything.
  9. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Mario---OF COURSE, they do not have Pike Place Market in their sights. It is because we have numerous strategically placed Air Force, Army and Naval installations that dot the entire Puget Sound that makes us a target. Actually up and down the West Coast, we are targeted. Not just because we have military installations there but because their nukes reportedly have the range to hit here easily enough. Does that make more sense?
  10. by   mario_ragucci
    Lol, I think you have high hopes for the NK's. In order to launch an intercontinential ballistic missle, you have to test it out and know exactly whats happening. NK ain't never shown such tests, and have not even test-detonated a nuke, like Pakistan did, back in 1998. And I don't think NK has the ability to get a nuke on a rocket and get it up into the atmosphere. Do you? If they tested one, that would be different. Even though a crude device could be realized, it's the actual testing which puts you in the club. It's proof and demonstration your team yeilded anything. Does that make sense :-)
  11. by   willie2003
    Wow Mario you need to go back and research. The CIA announced not to long ago that North Korea has the capability to launch a nuclear missile and hit the west coast of the US. And with their psycho in charge I wouldn't put it past them to do just that.
    Last edit by willie2003 on Apr 18, '03
  12. by   molecule
    the Seattle area is surrounded by military bases which could be targets. It is hard to sort out what type of conflict we have with NK, since we've been in conflict with them for over 50 years. To me that qualifies for being on both the Cold war and war on terror lists.
  13. by   fergus51
    Does anyone have any news links to the NK bomb threat? Everything I have read says they won't have the capability to hit the west coast for a few years (Alaska sooner), but everyone else says they already have the capability??
  14. by   molecule
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapc.../12/us.nkorea/

    In February CIA director Tenet testified NK has ballistic missile capacity to hit the US west coast.

close