Cold War Gone Hot

[Matt308]

So what brings you up north, to British Columbia?

 

[JugBR]

Actually Jug, I think you would've probably survived it. South American was not nuclearized and really had a limited threat to anyone. Same with Africa and the middle east. Being that most weather paterns stay north and south of the equator, even nuclear fallout would've been (probably, but not definitely) limited in your end of the world.

Instead of being destroyed by a Nuclear war, odds are Brazil would've probably come out as some kind of regional superpower. Not because of anything she did, but because she wasn't in it at all.

i dont like that "superpower" stuff, it gives too much problems... better would be brazil, argentina and the others joint to make another kind of political order or civilization. maybe come back to the past and starts where incas stopped then carry on.

but i still believe if ussr and usa would declare war to each other, the world would be destroyed as a whole. the only survivors would be the roaches and some politicians, wich is almost the same, instead roaches have 6 legs and politicians 4.

 

[stasoid]

So what brings you up north, to British Columbia?

I found it a perfect retreat in case of a full scale nuclear exchange

 

[timshatz]

in the early -to mid 1980ies at least three or four subs were on patrol at one time in the Northern Atlantic.

Have heard and read the number was larger. Combining Fast Attack with Boomer numbers. Both were out on two different missions. Boomers went out to hide and prep for the big one. Fast Attack went out to find the boomers (Nato navies) and find Nato boomers and protect their own boomers (Soviet navy). Also, both sides were using their Fast Attacks for odd jobs (espionage, recon, ect).

Soviets, to my understanding, had a lot of subs out at any given time, most staying north, up in the Arctic. Not saying they didn't come down into the North Atlantic, plenty did. But the Soviet Intell on Nato detection was very good. Their spies were better (or at least their security services were further into the Nato system).

Knew all about SOSUS.

 

[timshatz]

i dont like that "superpower" stuff, it gives too much problems...QUOTE]

Most people don't! Too expensive and pisses everyone off.

Wouldn't have much choice after the "big one". Brazil would've been one of the largest economies on the planet, defacto in charge, like it or not. Everybody else would've been knocked down to third world status.

Agree with ya' on politicians. Avoid them like the plague.

 

[Matt308]

Yep... 4 legs and all.

 

[RabidAlien]

The only thing wrong with politics is there's too many politicians involved.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I knew Germans of pretty all social levels and they expressed pretty various opinions.

Ditto!

You just helped prove my point!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Agree, but on the other hand, that silent majority of ordinary people who never participate in any kind of organized protests or rallys wouldnt be automaically counted as pro- nuclear/military/american etc... either

You are correct, but again a minority can not speak for a country as a whole, therefore your arguement and example have no merit.

Please dont take me wrong. All I am saying, is that it is nothing more than an opinion and therefore when used in this arguement has no merit.

 

[timshatz]

Actually, if taken to an ideological level, a democratic society is a situation where the "silent majority" does speak for the will of the people by voting. That vote and the party that it brings in represents the will of the people.

However, for the vote to be truely democratic, there has to be parties representing the will of the people and not just a vote to validate the existence of a Totalitarian state (be it Socialist, Facist or Communist).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

However, for the vote to be truely democratic, there has to be parties representing the will of the people and not just a vote to validate the existence of a Totalitarian state (be it Socialist, Facist or Communist).

I love how you use Socialism in the same way as you do Facism...

"Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics."

So please explain how they are close to each other?

 

[timshatz]

Using Socialist more along the lines of a very lite variety of Communism. What really matters is the totalitarian state. They call themselves everything under the sun except a Democracy. No way they can get that one past.

For example, the Soviet Union was closer to a socialist state (IMHO) than a communist state. For a true communist state, I would look at something like the Khymer Rouge.

A true communist state is almost unrecognizeable to our eye. It would be almost a bee hive (sans queen) in terms of equality in all facets of the word. The KR attempted to move towards that end and the results are the true (again, IMHO) results of a human attempt at communism in it's most pure form. Beyond slaughter as humans have no value beyond their existence as workers.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Using Socialist more along the lines of a very lite variety of Communism. What really matters is the totalitarian state. They call themselves everything under the sun except a Democracy. No way they can get that one past.

I am not a big fan of socialism either, but I do not see your comparison. To say that the socialist regimes of Western Europe are a lighter form of communism is a very uninformed conclusion.

For example, the Soviet Union was closer to a socialist state (IMHO) than a communist state. For a true communist state, I would look at something like the Khymer Rouge.

If that is the case, then what are the governments of England and Germany for example? They are even farther removed from communism than the Soviet Union was (in using your conclusion here).

Both have multiple parties (more parties than the United States has). Both allow free elections. Both allow the people to speak up against the government. Both have just about the same amount of freedoms (minus the right to bear arms) that "Democratic" regimes such as the United States have.

The only big difference is the amount of taxes (which is why I do not like Socialist governments) and health care.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your statement here. I think it is rather uninformed. Not trying to insult you however...

 

[timshatz]

No offense intended and none taken. No worries on that score. Good back and forth has this in it.

 

[timshatz]

Don't put the countries in Western Europe in the Socialist line. Didn't say that. At least I don't think I said that. Apologies if I did but they really aren't socialist (no matter what Americans toss back and forth when they call the CAC and DAX workers "the Socialist"). I would consider them an odd case but definitely Democratic. A flavor definitely imparted by their history.

Western Europe, is, again IMHO, a Democratic confluence with Socialist aspects to it and a weird leftover of Monarchism in there as well. But they change Govts way too often (via open and fairly effective voting processes) to be considered anything but Democracies. Also, they are responsive to the will of the people. The Socialist aspects are the welfare state perspectives of a safety net in various forms, accross all aspects of life (Workers Rights, Healthcare, Social Security, ect). These aspects have roots back in the Monarchies of the Second Riech (a version of Social Security being available to the German workers as far back as the turn of last century).

The Monarchist aspect is something that will take generations to remove. But the Ruling Class is still evident (in a much reduced form) in Europe. It will eventually go away, but there is a "us/them" mentality in Europe that I see solidifying now in the Ratification of the EU Constitution. Plenty of the rank and file of Europe don't seem to like the idea of the EU (as the Governing body) while the elected officials seem to be solidly behind it.

But back to the point. Don't see Western Europe (and, in fact the vast majority of Europe itself) as being Socialist. Not even close. Socialist countries are not particularly common today. Cuba would be a rough example of it. Venezuela seems to be heading that way. But most of them are pretty much gone.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay I see where you are coming from, and I now agree with you.

 

[timshatz]

Cool.

The only real question I have is how is the EU going to work in Europe. In an odd way, it really got the name right. It is a Union. Much like a Labor Union, a layer of management on top of the various Govts. It hands down edicts on how the interactions between the various Govts will work and how the various peoples will interact. It really has all the aspects of becoming a sprawling, all encompassing beaurocracy. I am very interested in seeing how it shakes out, especially with the French and more recently, the Irish turning it down.

Further, and this was a sticking point in American Federalism, can a country leave the EU if it wants? The American Civil war was fought based on the idea that a State couldn't leave the Union of it's own design. Once your in, you're in forever. How will the EU handle this when it comes up?

Plenty of interesting questions that have yet to be solved. Interesting to see how it plays out and what outside forces will affect it.

 

[mkloby]

One crucial area where European communist and socialist parties diverged was in the implementation of the means to establish a socialist society. Ultimate theoretical end state may have been the same, but the method was different. Socialist parties worked within the established democratic mechanisms, whereas many communist believed that this was the antithesis of their goal and incompatible with the acheivement of the end-state; they sought to erase the institutions of democratic government and start anew. Many communists believed that this would not be possible without armed insurrection. This conundrum appears to be one of the major points of contention among socialists since the beginning.

The history of socialism is very interesting and filled with irony - and very worthy of study regardless of your opinion.

 

[timshatz]

Good post Matt.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Cool.

The only real question I have is how is the EU going to work in Europe. In an odd way, it really got the name right. It is a Union. Much like a Labor Union, a layer of management on top of the various Govts. It hands down edicts on how the interactions between the various Govts will work and how the various peoples will interact. It really has all the aspects of becoming a sprawling, all encompassing beaurocracy. I am very interested in seeing how it shakes out, especially with the French and more recently, the Irish turning it down.

Further, and this was a sticking point in American Federalism, can a country leave the EU if it wants? The American Civil war was fought based on the idea that a State couldn't leave the Union of it's own design. Once your in, you're in forever. How will the EU handle this when it comes up?

Plenty of interesting questions that have yet to be solved. Interesting to see how it plays out and what outside forces will affect it.

Most of the people I know can not stand the EU. They do not like anything about it.