{"id":6999,"date":"2024-03-11T08:10:20","date_gmt":"2024-03-11T12:10:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=6999"},"modified":"2024-03-11T08:10:23","modified_gmt":"2024-03-11T12:10:23","slug":"cold-warrior","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2024\/03\/11\/cold-warrior\/","title":{"rendered":"Cold Warrior"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Bombs on the Way<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

I grew up in the \u201cCold War\u201d Era.  In fact, the Cold War was a major emphasis of my college degree.  It  wasn\u2019t just history, it was current events.  The dark humor of our foreign policy study group, steeped in the utter destructiveness of nuclear weapons, came through in a joke about a television announcement: \u201cThis just in, Moscow in flames, bombs on the way, film at eleven!!\u201d  The \u201cjoke\u201d was that if bombs were really on the way, there would be no station left to show the film at eleven, nor were we likely to be alive to see it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I lived in the intersection of circles, a Venn diagram of the areas of destruction from twenty megaton nuclear weapons.  Living in Granville, Ohio at Denison University, we were on the edge of total destruction if Columbus (and particularly Rickenbacker Air Base) was hit, and well within the destruction if the missile development base in Newark, Ohio was destroyed.  Surviving a nuclear attack wasn\u2019t an issue: we wouldn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At that time, the \u201cstability\u201d of the world depended on a theory called Mutual Assured Destruction, \u201cMAD\u201d.  It was pretty simple.  No matter what kind of attack we made on the Soviet Union, or they made on the United States, there was no way that would completely disable the other side\u2019s response.  Launch every missile, all the bombers, ballistic missile submarines:  in the end the \u201cother\u201d side had an invulnerable second strike capability.  That second strike would cause unacceptable losses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eyeball to Eyeball<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It wasn\u2019t that the United States and the Soviet Union didn\u2019t come up against each-other\u2019s military.  We stood \u201ceyeball to eyeball\u201d across the Berlin Wall, and the length of the East German border, and in dozens of other spots in the world.  But we avoided direct combat with each other because of the risk of escalation into a wider conflict, one that could go nuclear.  We got close enough to that in the Cuban Missile Crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I started learning about that in first grade.  It was 1962, and all of a sudden what used to be \u201ctornado\u201d drills, were now called \u201cair raid\u201d drills.  We first graders were lined up in the hallway, against the brick wall; head between our knees and hands over our neck.  We knew that if a \u201cbomb\u201d went off, we\u2019d be OK.  But we felt bad for our teachers, standing behind us, nervously pacing the hallway.  They were going to get \u201chit\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was the Cuban missile crisis, and we were living in a Detroit suburb.  A twenty megaton bomb on Detroit would absolutely have destroyed our community as well, sitting or standing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So instead of risking direct conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a series of \u201cproxy\u201d wars.  One side would support a \u201cthird party proxy\u201d to combat the other. It started in Korea, when the Soviets supported North Korea and later China in direct warfare with US and other allied Forces.  Then Vietnam, when the Soviets supported North Vietnam against the direct intervention of the US in South Vietnam.  Next was Afghanistan, when the US supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets.  And throughout the era, there were multiple parts of Africa and the Middle East, where both Soviets and Americans supported groups struggling to gain power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pay to Play<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Cold War ended when the Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to \u201ckeep up\u201d with the United States militarily.  It wasn\u2019t just the enormous amount of both blood and treasure the USSR was spending in Afghanistan, it was also the high tech weaponry that cost astronomical amounts to create and produce.  An example:  the US built 32 SR-71 Blackbirds as a supersonic, edge of space flying platform for reconnaissance.  They cost  $23 million each.  In response, the Soviets developed their own Mig 25 Foxbat and Mig 31 Foxhound to try to shoot the SR-71\u2019s down.  All of the planes were extremely costly, but the US economy was strong enough to bear the cost.  The Soviet economy was not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Out of the ashes of the Soviet collapse, the present day Russian oligarchy rose.  It\u2019s a nation based on corruption, the wealth of a few individuals based on the \u201cfire sale, pennies on the dollar\u201d dissolution of the state owned Communist economy.   The leaders of Russia are the rich, and the people of Russia are left behind, just as they were by the Soviet system.  President Vladimir Putin has greater goals than just his billions of rubles hidden away.  He wants to rebuild the \u201cSoviet Empire\u201d as his own Russian Empire.  It\u2019s nothing new, he\u2019s been doing it for two decades.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Russian Empire<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The world did little about Russian incursions into Georgia and Chechnya.  And Putin has pulled Belarus and Armenia \u201cclose\u201d as well.  Even when Russia sliced off two eastern provinces and Crimea in Ukraine in 2014, the only world response was economic sanctions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it should be no surprise that Putin wanted more, and launched an all-out invasion of Ukraine two years ago.  The difference is, for the first time, a former Soviet province had enough power to stand up to Russian might, and even drive it back.  That\u2019s where we are today, two years later.  The Ukrainian democracy isn\u2019t perfect, but it\u2019s stopped what was supposed to be the third most powerful military force in the world.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s in the United States best interests.  If Putin succeeds in Ukraine, there is no reason for him to stop there.  Transnistria, a renegade province of neighboring Moldova, is already under Russian influence.  And bordering Moldova is Bulgaria, a member of NATO.  NATO members also are west of Ukraine, and next \u201con the block\u201d for Russian expansion.  Under Article 5 of the NATO charter, an attack on one member is an attack on us all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine\u2019s Stand<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The equation is simple.  We can support Ukraine, willing to shed their blood to stop the Russian advance.  The US can spend money and resources without risking American lives, and not only defend Ukraine, but drain the Russian military and economy even more.  It\u2019s a scenario that Ronald Reagan would love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or we can let Ukraine fail, and Russia takeover.  And we can expect that, soon, we will be fighting with American forces, somewhere in a NATO country in Eastern Europe.  And, by the way, the missiles are still in the silos, the \u201cbombs\u201d can still be on the way.  Do we want a direct confrontation with the \u201cother\u201d biggest nuclear power in the world?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The choice is clear \u2013 a \u201cpay me now\u201d or \u201csurely pay me later\u201d scenario.  If we can look past our own domestic politics, it\u2019s in every American\u2019s interest to help Ukraine.  We can call it military aid, which it is, or we can use the ruse of \u201clending\u201d Ukraine materials, a loan that will never be repaid.  It doesn\u2019t matter what the political fig leaf is; what matters is that the materials keep flowing to Ukraine.  Not only does their courage and sacrifice deserve it; it\u2019s in America\u2019s best interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ukraine Crisis<\/h5>\n\n\n\n