McNamara, defense chief during Vietnam War, dies

[Axis Kast]

You were dealing with Yugoslavia and China. China was like 10fold the brutality, also. So?

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make, or whether you're side-stepping into non-sequitors or tu quoque fallacies.

The real issue, and one that you and Starglider would both shun to admit, is that the USA only asessed threats in the Cold War on the basis of a nation being capable to inflict damage on the USA. The USSR was a superpower capable of achieving a nuclear deterrent with your nation.

Shun to admit? Not at all. The United States was evidently quite concerned that the Soviet Union was a reasonable contender for superpower status, which would be potentially injurious to American interests. No need to dress it up nicely at all. Both governments dealt with some very reprehensible characters in order to safeguard interests that were at times chimerical, and frequently hard to measure or even define.

My interest in responding to your point about the Soviet constitution was to clarify that Communism, which was the official ideology of the Soviet Union, presupposes that peace is just another "face" of war, in which the proletariat are readying themselves, intellectually and physically, for revolutionary violence. The establishment of some "better" society was almost inherently linked to bloodletting. Nor did it end under Stalin; Khruschev's threat to "bury" the United States under the dung heap of history carried undertones of that same bloody inevitability. The revolutions that the U.S.S.R. was keen to see on its borders, and progressively deeper into Europe, also count.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make

Brutality has nothing to do with the US attitude towards a nation. Actualy military power has everything to do with that.

Communism, which was the official ideology of the Soviet Union, presupposes that peace is just another "face" of war ... Nor did it end under Stalin

Seriously... man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_coexistence
The Soviet official communist ideology books like the "Dictionary of Scientific Communism" said the following:

Peaceful coexistence is realized through the struggle for strict adherence to the principles of sovereignity, equal rights and territorial integrity, and non-interference into the affairs of other nations. A revolution according to Marxism-Leninism is a result of internal development of each society, and it "cannot be born in another nation by a decree, an agreement" ...

If your answer to that is that the USSR in practice continued to "look keen on revolutions", what's wrong with that? The US "looked keen" on military coups.

Rethoric was heated during the Cold War, but the post-1950s Soviet ideology did a dramatic shift. At the same time, in the 1950s and 1960s the US nuclear arsenal and means of delivery were only rising in potency. So the Soviet ideological willingness or unwillingness to coexist with the USA had nothing to do with the USA's military expansion.

This expansion was dictated primarily by the internal goals of the US political establishment, it's military brass and all that. This is why the preposterous lie about a "missile gap" existed. Not because the USA "honestly" overestimated the USSR's delivery means. The USA knew how many ICBMs, bombs and such the USSR had, with a small error margin. For the most part, the military never was in the dark.

It's the lust for money, military orders and political clout that comes with it which pushed this forward. Not the "Soviet ideology".

[Axis Kast]

Brutality has nothing to do with the US attitude towards a nation. Actualy military power has everything to do with that.

Nobody's denying it.

If your answer to that is that the USSR in practice continued to "look keen on revolutions", what's wrong with that? The US "looked keen" on military coups.

Yes, it did.

However, the idea that the Soviet Union did not embrace an ideology that called for, or manifested itself in, the elimination of capitalist societies in terrible struggle is ridiculous. You turn it back on the United States, implying that our culture is no less hegemonic and aggressively expansionistic. That's fine. And, as much as you keep saying, "We were really no threat to the United States!" it was often the rest of the world in which we were interested. You might be more faithful to your apparent intentions if you were to argue that we never should have interpreted moves in Vietnam, Europe, or Africa as threatening to the mainland United States. Of course, we will come right back and say, "But what about the future?"

It's the lust for money, military orders and political clout that comes with it which pushed this forward. Not the "Soviet ideology".

I'm unconvinced. There was always a tendency to inflate the prowess of the enemy. One of the reasons that the CIA "missed" the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was its institutional predisposition to give worst-case estimates. Individuals without access to classified information proving the fallacy of "Missile Gap" logic (which, even if it existed, had to be believed and disseminated to have impact) fervently believed that the United States was far behind in the race for technical and military supremacy.

Defense companies have a product to sell. No surprise there. The military has an institutional stake in acquiring effective tools in great quantity. Politicians frequently aim to do what is in the best interests of the nation. They certainly sometimes do things that are unethical and inappropriate, but nobody wakes up in the morning, sticks a cigarette in the holder, twirls their mustaches, and sets out to do great harm to national security interests.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, we will come right back and say, "But what about the future?"

What a load of bullshit. With a US nuclear deterrent, at no point, the USSR could pose a threat to mainland USA. At no point in the reliably predicted future. Even with worst-case estimates. So your and Starglider's ridiculous whine about poor mainland USA being threatened in any way is bullshit.

The US interests would be threatened, that's sure. And maybe hey, my point was that a reliable nuclear deterrent made both nations not so keen on starting a large war, but limiting only to local proxy wars. But that point flew right over yours (and Starglider's) head and you started humping about Soviet ideology, Soviet civil defence, and Soviet treaty-compliant ABM as if these things were in ANY WAY relevant to my fucking point.

Here's a hint - they are not relevant.

I'm unconvinced. There was always a tendency to inflate the prowess of the enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
Are you saying this shit was even remotely fucking serious? And like, connected to something else than US internal politics?

Individuals without access to classified information proving the fallacy of "Missile Gap" logic (which, even if it existed, had to be believed and disseminated to have impact) fervently believed that the United States was far behind in the race for technical and military supremacy.

Let me rephrase it: the US government, having the full access to classified information of all sorts, willingly in pursuit of it's political goals, disseminated falsehoods to the unknowing public, built up support for these false impressions to maintain support for it's military.

Politicians frequently aim to do what is in the best interests of the nation.

I'm not saying it was not in the best interests of the USA. I'm saying that it was a heap of bullshit, and that more confident US military planners with new defence tech might have been more reckless about blundering into a nuclear war.

[thejester]

The fact that the US gleefully invested in the USSR in the 1930s, when it was a weak agrarian nation, and helped it to become an industrial giant at the same time as the USSR's doctrine was to support revolutions and that "communism shall wash away all borders", shows that the US only cared for weakness or strength of a military opponent, not for it's stated goals. The USSR had a far smaller military and far more peaceful official goals in the post-war times, but it was stronger. That the USA could not tolerate.

Huh? I would have thought the policy of containment suggests that yes, the US could tolerate the USSR as it was. What they couldn't tolerate was the USSR controlling Western Europe, hence the build up of the nuclear deterrent.

[K. A. Pital]

What they couldn't tolerate was the USSR controlling Western Europe, hence the build up of the nuclear deterrent.

I'm not saying the US had no reasons to have a deterrent.

How many times should a point be repeated? "A reliable nuclear deterrent made both nations not so keen on starting a large war, but limiting only to local proxy wars" and "more confidence in one's defences could lead to adverse effects like blundering into a nuclear war".

Starglider decided that for some reason, this is hypocritical. He also strawmanned my position as to state that the US should have no nuclear deterrent at all which was at no point claimed by anyone - and basically started this flamefest over completely unrelated issues.

[Axis Kast]

What a load of bullshit. With a US nuclear deterrent, at no point, the USSR could pose a threat to mainland USA. At no point in the reliably predicted future. Even with worst-case estimates. So your and Starglider's ridiculous whine about poor mainland USA being threatened in any way is bullshit.

You seem to have a habit of insisting that one prepares for the distant future by cultivating satisfaction with present information. Accept that some take the long view.

Also do bear in mind that many Americans were concerned that the Soviets would determine that American threats of nuclear retaliation in the event of conventional military attack, particularly outside Europe, were mere bluster. There was concern that the Soviets could severely damage American investments and the integrity of governments we cared about, even if the North American continent was perceived "safe."

But that point flew right over yours (and Starglider's) head and you started humping about Soviet ideology, Soviet civil defence, and Soviet treaty-compliant ABM as if these things were in ANY WAY relevant to my fucking point.

You assume that I had any interest in coming between you and Starglider. I didn't, and don't. I was only interested in clarifying that there is credible reason to regard Communism as an expansionistic ideology.

Are you saying this shit was even remotely fucking serious? And like, connected to something else than US internal politics?

You've just heard the rationales of how one can arrive, honestly, at the perception of a Missile Gap. The Missile Gap link, by the way, contains no evidence to substantiate your claim that it was all a well-documented conspiracy perpetrated by ill-meaning folk.

Let me rephrase it: the US government, having the full access to classified information of all sorts, willingly in pursuit of it's political goals, disseminated falsehoods to the unknowing public, built up support for these false impressions to maintain support for it's military.

Prove it. If you plan to rely heavily on the CIA estimates, explain why these were especially trustworthy as compared to other projections from other quarters of government or elsewhere. The existence of a differential diagnosis is not proof that other propositions are demonstrably false.

I'm not saying it was not in the best interests of the USA. I'm saying that it was a heap of bullshit, and that more confident US military planners with new defence tech might have been more reckless about blundering into a nuclear war.

All right.

Nuclear warfare and deterrence theory are complex. If one builds too few weapons or defenses, the adversary might be quicker to go to war on the theory that he can "get 'em all," which might make oneself more disposed to launch first. If one builds too many defenses, then it appears as if one anticipates fighting, and winning, a nuclear war. And so on. That's just an observation, though, not an argument.

[K. A. Pital]

I was only interested in clarifying that there is credible reason to regard Communism as an expansionistic ideology.

So is nationalism, which is the most common ideology in all governments throughout all of history. Now, pre-World War II USSR I could understand being particulary unique in it's explicit statements of a world revolution and no possible coexistence wrt capitalist nations, but the post-war USSR which explicitly stated that revolutions are an internal matter and pronounced peaceful coexistence? It was no more unique in it's "expansionism" than any other nation. Hell, half of the world's advanced nations were colonial empires in the World War II and immediate post-war era.

The Missile Gap link, by the way, contains no evidence to substantiate your claim that it was all a well-documented conspiracy perpetrated by ill-meaning folk.

It was definetely not a conspiracy, just a public lie which was not, at any point, rebuked by the government and even wilfully disseminated and propagandized even well after the facts became completely laid out before the Kennedy administration. I don't understand where you get that "conspiracy" notion. It was just usual corruption and lies for the benefit of the US military industrial complex.

Prove it.

Prove what? The USAF and CIA threat assessments were obviously self-serving. It's a fact that doesn't require a proof. Not only that, but the fact that no public renunciation of these claims even after intelligence confirmed their falsehood was made, and especially the fact taht the government specifically in one case strong-armed an intelligence agency (the CIA) into providing a more "politically correct" estimate (Team B) speaks clearly in favour of the fact that these bogus claims were manufactured for the sake of the US military, by the US military and politicians with ties to the military, and for other goals such as electoral victories and rallying public support for the MIC, et cetera.

Nuclear warfare and deterrence theory are complex.

Sure they are. The well-known inability of the USSR to extinguish the US nuclear arsenal by a first strike, was always so and it was well known to analysts. The defence systems of both nations were inadequate for preventing a retaliatory strike or a first strike - hence the balance. If one of the nations had a system that could make the losses from a first strike or retaliatory strike "acceptable" from a military point of view (see Shep's ramblings), it could definetely make it more war-prone. Not necessarily would, but could with a high degree of probability.

[Starglider]

Maybe we should have glassed a few cities like America did?

If the USSR had possessed nuclear weapons in 1945, Stalin would absolutely have nuked Berlin, and most likely several other cities as well. It would have left eastern europe even more demoralised than they already were and western europe less willing to resist the soviet advance.

You know, "out of spite"?

There is a very good argument for the use of atomic weapons on Japan shortening the war and saving lives in the long run. The equivalent argument for Berlin is not as strong, because Hilter won't surrender no matter what you do and there's no guarentee of catching him in the blast until the very end of the campaign, but I would still not consider its (hypothetical) destruction by the USSR a war crime.

Also, what's so "intimidating" in a 100 megaton bomb? It's unusable as a weapon.

Politicians and lay people did not appreciate that. The test was specifically intended as political grandstanding, even you are incapable of pretending it is anything else so you have to pretend that it is harmless instead.

America on the other hand was keen on non-empty demonstrations of power.

Like what? The USSR tested just as much as the US did, once their program had caught up.

I never claimed that - show me where exactly did I say that the USSR should've had an ABM system capable of negating a US strike, or any ABM system exceeding the treaty limits for that matter?

So you conceed that the US is at least warranted in having defences around New York and Los Angeles equivalent to Moscow's? Or are you allowing the defence of leadership (i.e. Washington D.C.) here, general population just have to die if the USSR has a systems malfuction.

The USSR had massive conventional supremacy throughout the entire cold war (arguably not quite as massive in the 1980s).

Once again, so what, you hypocrite, strawmanning asshole? That has no relation to the issues you brought up (like ABM and civil defence).

It is completely relevant because the US explicitly developed its atomic superiority as a cost-effective solution to the USSR conventional superiority. That was the point of the whole 'tripwire doctrine' and massive development and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. The US neglected their conventional capability until Korea demonstrated how vulnerable that left US interests.

In what pertains to things like ABM and civil defence, they were a natural - let me beat that into your head - natural actions of a nation which has been under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Oh, so now the US is allowed to have them, but only from 1970 onwards? That the offence has to be able to wipe out 90% of your population, not a percent less, before you can even begin to defend them? You admit that your previous claim that they are dangerous and wrong on principle was a lie?

Everything you say is an attempt to rationalise your apparent notion that the US was in fact the 'evil empire' and the USSR should have won the cold war. Just be honest and admit this is your position rather than persisting with these ridiculous attempts to construct rules of conduct specific and twisted enough to make every Soviet action virtuous and every American action demonic. Or were you a Pravada copywriter in your previous life?

Whether you want to admit it or not, retaliatory capabilities are critical to ensuring a balance of forces. The USSR lacked them

For at most at 15 year window. Soviet ICBM and for that matter bomber development followed closely behind the US. It took longer to ramp the numbers, but that just meant that a counter-force strategy wasn't viable for the USSR; devastation of major population centers was still perfectly feasible from the early 60s onwards.

The USA for a large part did not have any looming threat of annihilation.

The USSR invented the concept of the bomber-launched standoff nuclear missile specifically to annihilate US targets despite the existing (and stagnant) air defence system. Are you seriously claiming that those 100 or so Tu-95s were just for airshows?

Also, the USSR had no naval supremacy so your bullshit is once again exposed in plain view. In a conventional war, the USSR had no abilities to inflict serious damage on the USA with it's forces. And the USSR airforce and navy were not superior to that of the USA or NATO for that matter.

You know, about cutting the military in 1946-1948 down from the 11-million to some 3 million.

The US Army went from 8 million to 700,000 in the same period; that is a genuine demobilisation, due to both an expectation of peace and that the US could rely on its nuclear program rather than a huge army to guarantee security. The USSR had no such expectation; after all it had to be ready to re-invade any country where one of the puppet regiemes it installed was faltering.

I guess the only level of Soviet forces you'd be content with and call it "non-threatening" would be zero, right?

I see no reason why defense of the USSR itself would require ground forces over a million troops. Retaining a significant army in the years immediately after the Nazi invasion was understandable but there is no excuse for having force levels of 5 million ten years later, when western Europe is declawed and the USSR is a nuclear power, other than maintaining the option to invade and crush all of Europe at the Premier's whim. The US nuclear arsenal was the only effective check on that capability.

removed the the knife from Western Europe's throat and the crushing boot from Eastern Europe's chest, but you refused to.

A lot of self-righteous bullshit from you again. Like I said, read a history book. At the same time as America built up gigatons of nukes, the USSR scaled down it's military more than 50%.[/quote]

And the US cut its manpower by 90%, what's your point again? Oh of course, once again ignoring and trying to deflect attention from the fact that the USSR was actively using its conventional forces to crush freedom and democracy across Eastern Europe, whereas the US restricted itself to defending an ally from an unprovoked communist invasion.

At the point when America had so much nuclear ordnance it could basically excise every Soviet megapolis from the face of the earth many times over (and I shouldn't remind you what it would mean, because in such cold climate infrastructure destruction would lead to massive starvation and complete degradation of the population), the USSR was barely making it's first serial nuclear detonations.

Even if the population of Russia had to live in fear a little longer than the population of America did, they deserved far worse for inflicting their political system (i.e. 'the secret police can torture and kill you with the flimsiest of jusifications and no oversight or comeback') on the whole of eastern europe.

In the mid 20th century US nuclear supremacy was the only check on rampant Soviet ambition and conventional superiority, and it was more than deserved. Don't try and pretend that you were the victims.

"Victims" of what? Once again, what's your problem?

You whining about how awful the US was, when the vast majority of the actual crimes were committed by the USSR (even ignoring internal injustices).

In what? The USSR had ABM according to the treaty.

The ABM treaty is a complete canard. Your original argument was that allowing the US to have ABM is inherently immoral, regardless of what treaties exist.

Civil defence is entirely a matter of a nation's internal politics, and if the USA did a poor fucking job of organizing it, the USSR is not at fault here, sorry.

So you are accepting now that the US can and should have civil defence at least as good as the USSR's?

I said: more confidence for the US military brass would mean more reckless actions would be possible. You disagree?

Yes. No one wanted to start a nuclear war even with ABM in place. Changes in relative nuclear capabilities mean you can push a bit further for a given risk of escalation - it doesn't matter if it's ABM, better accuracy, better protected launchers, or just more warheads - but it does not change the amount of risk that any particular politician is prepared to take, or substantially affect their perception of risk. If anything, the US were historically woefully pessimistic about their own ABM systems.

You think the Soviet civil defence system or the Moscow ABM are somehow related to that statement, or making it "hypocritical"?

Yes, because by your own logic the Moscow system made more reckless actions by the USSR possible - yet somehow you seem to think this is ok.

You think other nations don't deserve the right to excise USA from the face of the fucking Earth, but the USA deserves, at all times, the right to do so with other nations without fearing retaliation, and should deserve that at all times.

The whole notion of 'rights' applied to military capabilities is ludicrous, as are many of the other cries of 'what right have you to X'. Rights make sense as legal constructs applied to individuals, to safeguard their freedoms within the context of a legal system (not that the USSR would know much about safeguarding freedoms). There may be a weak case for enumerating 'sovereign rights' within the framework of international law (e.g. the EU treaties), but generally asking whether nations have a 'right' to enact their national policies is nonsencial (witness the whole 'does Iran have a right to nuclear weapons' farce). Given the existence of a capability, we should simply say what the consequences are, and who benefits and who suffers under such circumstances. The ability of the US to destroy the USSR decisively prevented the later from rolling the iron curtain forward to cover all of Europe in communist tyranny the 1950s. The actual benefits of the USSR's arsenal to anyone but the Russian political elite are highly dubious - perhaps there would have been more Vietnams, hard to say - but I do not classify the USSR as evil merely for having a robust nuclear capability.

You're no different from all the US jingoists who think that a nuclear balance is a bad idea, and unilateral-stike capable nuclear hyperpower is a better idea. You're the hypocrite.

At no point have I said that the US should be the sole nuclear power. I have no problem with say France or India having nuclear weapons. The only reason I might describe the Soviet arsenal as inherently evil was the role it played in supporting the effective occupation of eastern Europe.

The US "second strike" capabilities at all times were more than enough to deter anyone from anything even without ABM.

But no protection at all against error, malfunction or third-party-triggered escalation, as actually demonstrated by numerous historical incidents on both sides. Meanwhile

Your whine about a very simple, history-proven fact which I noted, more confidence in defences leads to greater blunders

you have given zero historical examples that support this - and the irony is, even if you could find any, they would have to be on the Soviet side, because only the USSR had an effective ABM system deployed.

[K. A. Pital]

Starglider, you're being deliberately fucking dense, right?

1) Being more confident in one's defence and/or one's military power leads to more eagerness to make war; even if the end result is disastrous. I have brought forward quite a few examples - Nazi Germany (Hitler's belief that the Aryan military prowess will somehow overcome industrial nations which could pound German Army into pulp and eventually did) confidence and overconfidence, result: war. USSR in the 1930s-1940s - overconfidence in the might of the Red Army. Result: military disasters in 1940 and 1941. Also, a military adventure in Finland. Which likewise ended as a disaster. USA 2003: Iraq. Overconfidence in it's technological and military superiority. Result: disaster and a military quagmire.

You are disputing my statement that greater confidence in one's military power and one's defences does not lead to (a) more chance to initiate a war, even blunder into one by chance (b) more arrogance and thus more possibility for blunder? Please do dispute it with a logical demonstration that greater confidence in one's defences and no fear of retaliation do not lead to greater capacity for a war.

2) You are saying the US Army demobilized from 8,000,000 to 700,000, even though it's clear as day that the US Army was not required of to wage a conventional war in Europe, and it did not need any troops to defend the proper US mainland, thus making a level of 700,000 more than sufficient. With the massive reliance on nuclear deterrent, the US demobilization is more than justified. The USSR did not have any deterrent in the post-war days. In fact, the large conventional army was THE deterrent. If the USSR had a nuclear deterrent with thousands of bombers in the late 1940s, I would imagine it would not need an army of 5 million. In fact, the more USSR got a nuclear deterrent, the more it downsized it's Army. That's the math you're ignoring. In 1948 when it was clear a nuclear detonation was not far away, the USSR downsized it's AF numbers down to 2,5 million combined - not a far cry from the "1 million" you claim is enough to defend the nation. It only escalated back during the Korean War-related tensions.

For Starglider the lying asshole - numbers and relation to wartime AF numbers in brackets:
Year | US of A | USSR
1945 | 8 million | 11 million
1948 | 0,8 million (0,1) | 2,5 million (0,22)
1950 | 1,46 million (0,18) | 2,8 million (0,25)
1953 | 3,64 million (0,45) | 5,5 million (0,5)
1957 | 2,48 million (0,31) | 3,3 million (0,30)

Clearly, there's some sort of huge mega-super uber-militarization. Or maybe not. As continental power, the USSR always had a larger active duty Army. And it also maintained it at similar to American levels from peak wartime deployment. If there's anything that these numbers indicate, it's not some sort of "uber-duper superiority", especially with US nuclear superiority. For example, the USSR constantly employed around 500,000 men in the PVO (national air defence) which means it's actual forces that were possible to use in foreign operations were yet less. And the USA did not have anything like a 500,000 and beyond strong PVO because the USSR for the 1945-1960 period was nigh incapable of reaching the US homeland. Starglider, I expect you to actually honestly admit you lied your ass out about some sort of "Soviet conventional supremacy" other than that of USSR's land army which wasn't even that overwhelmingly large.

What's the great achievement of the USA in downscaling it's Army when the US mainland could not be threatened by any sort of conventional invasion? That's just preposterous and idiotic. You know it, but you still think people here are apparently brainless idiots.

So you conceed that the US is at least warranted in having defences around New York and Los Angeles equivalent to Moscow's?

I don't "conceed" anything you fucking dipshit because I never claimed the US should not have had an ABM system like the Moscow one, and you should fucking GET THAT and stop fucking strawmanning my argument because at no point I claimed, here or elsewhere, that the US was not entitled to have a system similar to the one USSR fielded. The treaty allowed the US to have such defences and it's solely the US problem that they chose to protect some nuclear site instead of protecting a capital city or a megapolis.

So quick, find where I, in this very thread, claimed at any point that the US should not have a treaty-compliant ABM system. You have 24 hours to back that shit up, and if you don't - I'll HoS that in an instant. And if you put words into my mouth once more, a lesson will be learned the hard way. Enough is enough, fucktard.

Your original argument was that allowing the US to have ABM is inherently immoral

Find where I claim that, dipshit. You have 24 hours to do it.

I do not classify the USSR as evil merely for having a robust nuclear capability

Have I classified anyone as evil for having a "robust nuclear capacity"? No? Then what the fuck are you claiming?

So you are accepting now that the US can and should have civil defence at least as good as the USSR's?

That's it fucker. I'm tired of it. You put fucking words in my mouth, then proceed to claim that you somehow "convinced me" when I never claimed that the US should not have had a robust civil defence system.

Yes. No one wanted to start a nuclear war even with ABM in place. Changes in relative nuclear capabilities mean you can push a bit further for a given risk of escalation - it doesn't matter if it's ABM, better accuracy, better protected launchers, or just more warheads - but it does not change the amount of risk that any particular politician is prepared to take, or substantially affect their perception of risk. If anything, the US were historically woefully pessimistic about their own ABM systems.

You're full of shit. During the US nuclear supremacy days, the US military brass routinely contemplated scenarios of mass using nuclear weapons during an escalation of conventional war.

It does change the amount of risk. Escalating against a nation without a reliable deterrent is easier than against one with such a deterrent. In the 1950s, escalating against China was considered not to be such a grave threat as escalating against the USSR for example. So once again you can't even fucking prove your own point.

Which is "it does not change the amount of risk that any particular politician is prepared to take" - it does change the amount of risk because it's precisely MEANT to change the amount of threat another nation poses to your own.

Yes, because by your own logic the Moscow system made more reckless actions by the USSR possible

The Moscow system consisted of several dozen interceptors at peak. How would that make retaliation less imminent is fucking beyond me, dipshit, so once again - stop putting words in my mouth. You're a fucking liar, a retard and a dumbass.

I see no reason why defense of the USSR itself would require ground forces over a million troops.

Because you are a fucking idiot, right? The last conventional invasion had to be beaten back by an army which constituted from over 5 to 11 million troops. That was a conventional invasion by an industrial power which did not have nuclear supremacy, or any nuclear devices for that matter.

there is no excuse for having force levels of 5 million ten years later

The USSR by 1957 had cut down the Army, Navy and Airforce combined to 3,5 million men. Your point being... I know. You have no point. You don't understand that the USA is not a continental power, or are you deliberately bullshitting here?

US could rely on its nuclear program rather than a huge army to guarantee security. The USSR had no such expectation

The USSR did not have a reliable nuclear deterrent against the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Your point is? After the USSR achieved a deterrent, it lowered the troop requirements for it's Armed forces and initiated massive cuts.

The USSR invented the concept of the bomber-launched standoff nuclear missile specifically to annihilate US targets despite the existing (and stagnant) air defence system. Are you seriously claiming that those 100 or so Tu-95s were just for airshows?

The USSR only achieved such numbers of Tu-95s by the 1960s. The Tu-95 of the 1960s with the Kh-20 posed little threat to the USA however, whose air defence network was quite capable of downing most of them with the BOMARC missiles, that were in production since 1955 and were uprgaded to have out-range capabilities by the 1960s, of which the US had hundreds - more than the entire Soviet Tu-95 fleet in the 60s. This was what actually led to the cancellation of Tu-95 Kh-20 combo, and in the 1970s the creation of Kh-55 with a range of several thousand km.

For at most at 15 year window.

With the ABM treaty limiting efforts against ballistic missiles, the USSR was able to switch to ICBMs and quickly achieve some sort of reliable deterrent, since attacking the US with bombers over sea was incrediby hard and yielded little success rates in the Soviet generalitee reports. And no, in the year 1960 the USSR did not have a reliable deterrent against the USA.

More than that, if you say that devastation of several cities in wartime is acceptable loss, then clearly that would hardly hold back a more reckless and confident US military. And I'm not saying it necessarily WOULD cause them to be more reckless, but definetely give more capabilities for recklesness.

Everything you say is an attempt to rationalise your apparent notion that the US was in fact the 'evil empire'

I haven't claimed anywhere that the US was evil, or an empire. You're lying again, fuckface.

So - summarizing - a bunch of HoS-worthy lies, putting words in my mouth and bullshitting. Nice.

Incidentally, if we consider the Moscow ABM system, that definetely made the USSR more capable in going to war against smaller nuclear powers (eg. China), because it negated their small arsenal. What an ABM which could negate a large arsenal could do is create an illusion of invulnerability. It's not necessary for it to be 100% effective, it just should be perceived as enough of a shield behind which one could plan a sufficiently strong strike.

And hey, you just said that the assured nuclear destruction of the USSR by the USA acted as a deterrent and held the USSR from starting a larger war over Western Europe. By your own logic, if that destruction was not imminent, and un-avoidable, the USSR with greater probability would be ready to start a war over Eastern Europe.

You're claiming that the US nuclear deterrent deterred the USSR from risky behaviour and blundering into a large world war, but you say that the US did not need such a deterrent for itself. What a pathetic hypocrite asshole you are. In this thread I never said the US should not have had a deterrent because it quite obviously should and did have it, but you claimed that negating the deterrent of a nation is NOT leading to more capacity for war. You're contradicting yourself.

Either nuclear destruction means little and thus prevention of nuclear deterrence does not change the risk of war, or it does mean a lot in deterrence and changing the balance does in fact, change the risk of war.

[Axis Kast]

So is nationalism, which is the most common ideology in all governments throughout all of history. Now, pre-World War II USSR I could understand being particulary unique in it's explicit statements of a world revolution and no possible coexistence wrt capitalist nations, but the post-war USSR which explicitly stated that revolutions are an internal matter and pronounced peaceful coexistence? It was no more unique in it's "expansionism" than any other nation. Hell, half of the world's advanced nations were colonial empires in the World War II and immediate post-war era.

Tu quoque, excepting for your comments about the post-WWII U.S.S.R., which still don't square with Communism as it was explained by its founding fathers. I don't think we're in-argument any longer.

It was definetely not a conspiracy, just a public lie which was not, at any point, rebuked by the government and even wilfully disseminated and propagandized even well after the facts became completely laid out before the Kennedy administration. I don't understand where you get that "conspiracy" notion. It was just usual corruption and lies for the benefit of the US military industrial complex.

I'm afraid that I must insist on proof that there was widespread knowledge in government that the Missile Gap was a canard - if that is your contention.

Prove what? The USAF and CIA threat assessments were obviously self-serving. It's a fact that doesn't require a proof. Not only that, but the fact that no public renunciation of these claims even after intelligence confirmed their falsehood was made, and especially the fact taht the government specifically in one case strong-armed an intelligence agency (the CIA) into providing a more "politically correct" estimate (Team B) speaks clearly in favour of the fact that these bogus claims were manufactured for the sake of the US military, by the US military and politicians with ties to the military, and for other goals such as electoral victories and rallying public support for the MIC, et cetera.

I repeat, since you did not address this point earlier: what are your standards for credible intelligence, and how can you be sure that those standards, if any, were shared by the individuals in government whom you are insisting always knew that the Missile Gap was lunacy? Can you explain how the Wohlstetter piece was a lie, too?

Sure they are. The well-known inability of the USSR to extinguish the US nuclear arsenal by a first strike, was always so and it was well known to analysts. The defence systems of both nations were inadequate for preventing a retaliatory strike or a first strike - hence the balance. If one of the nations had a system that could make the losses from a first strike or retaliatory strike "acceptable" from a military point of view (see Shep's ramblings), it could definetely make it more war-prone. Not necessarily would, but could with a high degree of probability.

I don't think there's any way to prove that possession of a shield makes anyone more violence, assuming the two forces were evenly matched in strong offensive capability beforehand. I acknowledge that it's a possibility. I don't think, again, that we're really in-argument, however.

[K. A. Pital]

Tu quoque

We're not at Nuremberg, and two, you're missing the point Starglider made. He said that the USSR's official doctrine called for the violent annihilation of the "Western governments". I pointed out that it was no longer true after the 1950s, and significantly curtailed even during the 1930s-1940s. End of story.

Communism as "explained by it's fathers" is bullshit because communism was easily twisted in perception from industrializing plan economy (Stalin) to market mixed economy (Tito) to finally agrarian, de-industrial, primitive-dictatorial society (Khmer Rouge). Every dictator twisted the meaning of communism to his liking. The fathers of communism denied even the possibility of communism in Russia. Lenin developed his own theories; Stalin changed them. Mao changed them to say that peasantry is the key class. Pol Pot went even further and destroyed cities and industries for a "return to the land". Tito said the market is okay. Deng Xiaoping did the same in China. Etc.

I'm afraid that I must insist on proof that there was widespread knowledge in government that the Missile Gap was a canard

I'll dig out the relevant documents and we'll see from there, okay? I'm just a little busy right now.

[Simon_Jester]

The fact that the US gleefully invested in the USSR in the 1930s, when it was a weak agrarian nation, and helped it to become an industrial giant at the same time as the USSR's doctrine was to support revolutions and that "communism shall wash away all borders", shows that the US only cared for weakness or strength of a military opponent, not for it's stated goals. The USSR had a far smaller military and far more peaceful official goals in the post-war times, but it was stronger. That the USA could not tolerate.

There was something else going on here. It's related to US internal politics, so you might not know about it.. Remember what I said about there being two schools of thought about the USSR in America, both of which were wrong but in different directions?

During the '30s, the "optimist" school dominated- the ones who thought Stalinism was pure distilled essence of progress* and that the USSR was the wave of the technocratic socialist future. Remember, at that time there were socialists in the US, and they were taken seriously. Among the intellectual and political classes, they carried quite a bit of weight. So everyone from the Roosevelt administration on down was basically OK with the idea of American companies trading and investing in Russia.

By contrast, during the '50s and later, the "pessimist" school dominated- the ones who thought that the USSR was the Evil Empire. The optimists were almost completely discredited by Stalin's decision to carve out a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe at the expense of the democratic process. Just as the optimists had grossly underestimated the ruthlessness and ambition of Stalin, the pessimists grossly overestimated the ruthlessness and ambition of the post-Stalin leadership.

And that was the political context in which US military and diplomatic policy started pointing gigatons of nukes at you guys- our leaders honestly believed that they had to do that just to get your attention and stop you from trying to conquer the world. They were wrong, but they had no reliable or accurate information to tell them that they were wrong- not least because most of the facts that might have reassured them were state secrets in the USSR.

*As opposed to "progress with a hefty side order of oppression"

[MKSheppard]

Stas, give me a bit, and I'll jump into the debate you and Starglider are having there. Looks like fun.

Possibly the only reason that I too am not firmly in the "Fuck McNamara" crowd.

Incorrect. The F-111 is NOT McNamara.

It originated before him.

In 1959, TAC wanted a replacement for the F-105 Thunderchief in the low level nuclear strike role, and what TAC wanted was:

1.) Capability of carrying a compact weapons load (Nukes) internally.
2.) To fly across the atlantic ocean without refuelling
3.) To operate from dispersed semi-prepared fields in Europe.
4.) To Reach Mach 2.5 for high altitude engagements with enemy fighters
5.) To travel at high subsonic speeds at low altitudes for an extended range.

By the way, the operate from semi prepared field requirement was a response to the F-105 requiring 10,500 foot runways to take off; which would have been nuked in WW3's opening rounds. While TAC liked the F-105; they wanted something that didn't need a runway the length of the equator to take off. The "Ferry across the atlantic" requirement came about because if they deployed them in europe, they'd easily get nuked or blown up in the first wave of soviet strikes. By basing them in CONUS, and forward deploying to the UK or Europe in the event of an emergency; the destruction in wave 1 problem was fixed.

At the time, TAC found out that meeting all these things would mean a total takeoff weight of 50 tons, making it too heavy to operate from unprepped fields.

Plus, aerodynamically, you needed a long unswept wing for transoceanic range and STOL; and a short swept wing for high speed.

TAC was stumped, yet refused to compromise on their requirements. It was a meeting with John Stack of NASA who had done a lot of wind tunnel research into variable geometry wings which saved the F-105 follow on program.

The specs were:

1.) Unrefuelled Ferry range of 3,300 miles
2.) Low-Low-Hi radius of 800 miles
3.) Within that radius of a sea level dash range of 400 mile at high subsonic
4.) A capability to operate from short unprepared grass airstrips.

After some talk, the USAF issued Specific Operational Requirement Number 183 (SOR-183) in July 1960; which commited the USAF to a F-105 successor; and raised the sea level dash speed from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.2

By the way, McNamara did not become SecDef until January 21, 1961.

When he entered the Pentagon, he immediately cancelled further F-105 procurement in favor of more F-4s; and merged the Navy's F6D Missileer program with the Air Force's SOR-183 program.

As a final "fuck you" to the military...well, I'll quote directly from The Illusions of Choice here:

The first two rounds of the competition (October 1961 to May 1962) reduced the field of competitors from six to two: Boeing and General Dynamics. At that point, the combined Navy-Air Force Source Selection Board judged the proposals of both remaining contractors to be unacceptable.

Two further rounds of competition (June 1962 through November 1962) produced acceptable proposals from both contractors. The Navy-Air Force Source Selection Board unanimously recommended the selection of Boeing, since Boeing's design promised greater attention to individual service requirements (through less commonality between Air Force and Navy versions) and also proposed certain technical innovations the services found attractive.

But McNamara overruled the Source Selection Board. He contended that the General Dynamics proposal was less risky in technical terms, more realistic on costs, and more productive of a truly common aircraft than the Boeing proposal. For him, these factors allegedly were decisive and, in any event, the services had judged the proposals of both contractors to be acceptable.

Additionally, the reason why strange overruled the board may have been politicial -- at the time GD was in serious financial troubles and would have had to close their Fort Worth plant if an order wasn't picked up. Plus; LBJ was from texas.

This is what the F-111 should have looked like:




For Ando. RAAF Boeing 818.

By the way; an independent study done by private contractors that Strange commissioned in 1962 on the program said that commonality would probably save as much money as McNamara anticipated, but would produce a serious weight problem on the Navy version; and indeed, weight problems on the F-111B were such a problem that guess what?

Strange would actually have blueprints of the latest F-111B changes brought and laid out on his office's floor; and then he'd spend hours poring over them, trying to find things to cut to reduce weight.

Yes, Strange the ARROWSPACE ENGINEER!

[Thanas]

^Where's your source for all this, Shep?

[MKSheppard]

^Where's your source for all this, Shep?

Illusions of Choice: The F-111 and the Problem of Weapons Acquisition Reform by Robert F. Coulam, 1977. plus graphics from Secret Projects Co Uk.

[Axis Kast]

We're not at Nuremberg, and two, you're missing the point Starglider made. He said that the USSR's official doctrine called for the violent annihilation of the "Western governments". I pointed out that it was no longer true after the 1950s, and significantly curtailed even during the 1930s-1940s. End of story.

Communism as "explained by it's fathers" is bullshit because communism was easily twisted in perception from industrializing plan economy (Stalin) to market mixed economy (Tito) to finally agrarian, de-industrial, primitive-dictatorial society (Khmer Rouge). Every dictator twisted the meaning of communism to his liking. The fathers of communism denied even the possibility of communism in Russia. Lenin developed his own theories; Stalin changed them. Mao changed them to say that peasantry is the key class. Pol Pot went even further and destroyed cities and industries for a "return to the land". Tito said the market is okay. Deng Xiaoping did the same in China. Etc.

Communism presumes eternal class war. The Soviet Union represented itself as agnostic to the call for activism on behalf of world revolution, but continued to "talk the talk," as exemplified by Khruschev's "shoe speech."

[K. A. Pital]

Communism presumes eternal class war.

Really? "Eternal" class war? That's something out of fantasy, I'm afraid. The only communists who claimed something similar were Stalin and Mao, and their theories were not "eternal" class war but "intensification of class war during socialism" which was basically nothing but a convenient excuse for the political purges. And you still haven't dealt with the fact that at least in Lenin's, Khrushev's and Brezhnew's interpretation, socialist revolutions are an internal matter for nations. Which meant "support socialism, but in sovereign nations". What's so particulary unique about that? Support of ideologically friendly regimes? That was the business of everyone and his dog.

I shouldn't remind you that documents like NSC 20/1 in 1948 called for the abolition of the Soviet government and "decommunization" in the USSR proper either through covert operations or open war, i.e. was essentially the "mirror" to USSR's early statement of abolishing capitalism. So in fact, the USA, at least what concerned it's top intel and military circles, has set itself on a course which directly proclaimed the destruction of the Soviet government. Not as some sort of "grand theory of class struggle", but as an actual strategy. What would you say about that?

As for your claims about the falsehood of the Missile Gap not being known to the US government, I'm afraid this one will have to go as well.
Cramer, Jane. "Insufficient Information v. Lying:Explaining the Sources of the National Misperception of a Missile Gap" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002
The paper details an interesting fact: Dulles duly informed that the USSR conducted what, 6 ICBM tests - and the airforce claimed that the USSR would be able to construct thousands of missiles within a few years. Claims which were not substantiated by anything and were obviously nothing but a self-serving lie. And many other such facts as well.

And actually on the topic of Strange: just after he entered his position in the government, he said publicly that he thought the "missile gap" is bogus. So Strange was actually smarter than Kennedy and his backers combined, or Kennedy and the missile gap backers were in fact shameless liars and political manipulators, who combined a non-existent threat with political fearmongering to gain power. And then, without any denials of the missile gap, they just let the issue slide into oblivion so that no one would task them for the lies made in the "best interests of the United States". That's the same level of fearmongering as exhibited by the USSR when it claimed that Western powers in the 1920s would be eager to attack it and utterly destroy it while each fielding over 100 divisions and over 100,000 tanks. That of course had the ground in "estimates" by the military which nothing but were self-serving bogus.

Remember, at that time there were socialists in the US, and they were taken seriously.

I doubt Henry Ford was a socialist. Which socialists are you talking about? The USA deported thousands of socialists in the 1900s, that I know... I also know that the main participants in Soviet-American trade were basically the mega-capitalists of the USA. And one of the prime creditors of the Soviet industrial rise was the US government.

During the '30s, the "optimist" school dominated- the ones who thought Stalinism was pure distilled essence of progress*

During the 30s, the USSR actually still proclaimed violent destruction of capitalist nations (even if no longer a "world revolution"), publicly decried their very existence and claimed that near is the day when "communism shall wash away all borders". I don't know what they "thought" of Stalinism, but it was clear from Stalin and his ruling circle's public speeches and doctrine documents that the USSR was not willing to tolerate capitalism. In the 1960s, the public statements rapidly made a 180 degree turn. I don't believe the US leaders or capitalists for that matter couldn't understand the public talk of their own demise. My version that they simply didn't care because they thought of the USSR as of a weak agrarian nation, possibly a buffer against European powers, not as of a serious superpower contender that it became after World War II.

Power and perception of power - not intent or perception of intent - was driving the foreign policy of the US.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Wouldn't those dorsal inlets for the engines result in terrible airflow masking even at low AoA shep?

[Shroom Man 777]

HEY STAS! Maybe if you replaced soulless non-human Soviet Russians with Iraqis and "missile" or "bomber gaps" with "weapons of mass destruction", and Stalin with another moustachioed dictator then maybe Axis may be more agreeable to your point. It'd totally be a retroactive precedent of shitpiece politicians outright lying for political gain or dineros.

But I don't know. Soviet Russians are way scarier than Iraqis and are harder to see as actual-factual human beings, so that point might not be acceptable at all.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, "insufficient information" has been a good horse for the Iraq war apologists, who still to this day claim that Bush and Cheney acted in "good faith" on "what seemed like reliable intelligence" quite obviously "at the time". I doubt Axis, who thinks the Iraq war wasn't a case of political manipulation or lie last time I heard him, would really change his position from "insufficient information".

I mean, any time Americans HUR-RAH defeat some THREATS TO THE FATHERLAND it's "acting in good faith" for the "best interests of the United States".

When moustache-twirling Arabs, drunken Russians or smelly Chinese start some sort of military program or god forbid get into a war, that is "paranoic agressive expansionism". US conduct in Latin America, Middle East and elsewhere is "securing the interests of the United States". Soviet conduct in E. Europe is "astonishing brutality" and "agressive expansionism" and all the blah.

Eye of the beholder I guess.

[Axis Kast]

Really? "Eternal" class war? That's something out of fantasy, I'm afraid. The only communists who claimed something similar were Stalin and Mao, and their theories were not "eternal" class war but "intensification of class war during socialism" which was basically nothing but a convenient excuse for the political purges. And you still haven't dealt with the fact that at least in Lenin's, Khrushev's and Brezhnew's interpretation, socialist revolutions are an internal matter for nations. Which meant "support socialism, but in sovereign nations". What's so particulary unique about that? Support of ideologically friendly regimes? That was the business of everyone and his dog.

Stalin and Mao are central figures in the concretization of negative American perceptions of Communism.

Moreover, your attempts to establish domestic parameters for application of Communist teachings in the Soviet Union get away from the dialectical core of that philosophy, which really presumed that the world was headed for a cataclysmic showdown between labor and capital, and the pawns thereof.

Thirdly, your tu quoque fallacies are becoming repetitive. American hypocrisy has little to do with the practical definition of Communism. It's also not something I'm denying.

The paper details an interesting fact: Dulles duly informed that the USSR conducted what, 6 ICBM tests - and the airforce claimed that the USSR would be able to construct thousands of missiles within a few years. Claims which were not substantiated by anything and were obviously nothing but a self-serving lie. And many other such facts as well.

That, or vast exaggerations, which the author of the paper admits on p. 25. The crux of your article is a single quotation on p. 30, drawn second-hand, that the author claims is proof of Symington's ultimate personal agreement with the CIA. What if Symington did not believe the CIA? If he thought that the CIA was saying that the Soviets had jumped ahead, but were pulling back, then why couldn't he also fear that they would suddenly reaccelerate? And what of individuals who had no access to this special intelligence, or who took Symington at face value? Why must you insist that this was all conscious perfidy?

HEY STAS! Maybe if you replaced soulless non-human Soviet Russians with Iraqis and "missile" or "bomber gaps" with "weapons of mass destruction", and Stalin with another moustachioed dictator then maybe Axis may be more agreeable to your point. It'd totally be a retroactive precedent of shitpiece politicians outright lying for political gain or dineros.

But I don't know. Soviet Russians are way scarier than Iraqis and are harder to see as actual-factual human beings, so that point might not be acceptable at all.

Isn't there some kind of rule requiring the presentation of evidence when you post an argument? Aren't you subject to it?

I mean, any time Americans HUR-RAH defeat some THREATS TO THE FATHERLAND it's "acting in good faith" for the "best interests of the United States".

When moustache-twirling Arabs, drunken Russians or smelly Chinese start some sort of military program or god forbid get into a war, that is "paranoic agressive expansionism". US conduct in Latin America, Middle East and elsewhere is "securing the interests of the United States". Soviet conduct in E. Europe is "astonishing brutality" and "agressive expansionism" and all the blah.

Eye of the beholder I guess.

You have an awful habit of trying to cover up the shabbiness of your own arguments by making grand references to the equal culpability of the other side - when that has never even been a subject of contention. The conversation between you and I is not about whether or not the United States has ever conducted "paranoic aggressive expansionism" or cynical, self-serving manipulation of others. We have supported regimes of astonishing brutality. We have engaged in expansionism of all types. That doesn't discredit any of the arguments I've been making. It also doesn't help you defend your positions.

[K. A. Pital]

Moreover, your attempts to establish domestic parameters for application of Communist teachings in the Soviet Union get away from the dialectical core of that philosophy

We are speaking about a nation's application of communism, because that is far more important that the "core" of that ideology. Like I said, the communist "ideology" in various nations was remarkably different. Why should we pay attention to it's "core" then?

American hypocrisy has little to do with the practical definition of Communism.

Your definition of "communism" is bullshit. Moreover, you did nothing to answer my point that the ideology of post-World War II communist governments was not any more or less expansionist and agressive than usual nationalism.

Why must you insist that this was all conscious perfidy?

How about a simple fact: Symington, even after the reconaissance exposed the "missile gap" as bullshit, claimed brazenly that "nonetheless" it's dangerous and the US should go with the Kennedy military expansion plan. If anything, this indicates that regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the fake Soviet "superiority" Symington was hellbent on making that plan a reality. It betrays intent, not "lack of information".

How about what I said of "Team B"?

In 1975, PFIAB members asked CIA Director William Colby to approve the initiative of producing comparative assessments of the Soviet threat. Colby refused, stating it was hard "to envisage how an ad hoc independent group of analysts could prepare a more thorough, comprehensive assessment of Soviet strategic capabilities than could the intelligence community."[11] Colby was removed from his position in the Halloween Massacre; Ford has stated that he, himself, made the decision alone,[12] but the historiography of the "Halloween Massacre" appears to support the allegations that Rumsfeld had successfully lobbied for this.[13]

When George H. W. Bush became the Director of Central Intelligence in 1976 the PFIAB renewed its request for competitive threat assessments. Although his top analysts argued against such an undertaking, Bush checked with the White House, obtained a go-ahead, and by May 26 signed off on the experiment.[4]

A team of 16 "outside experts" were to take an independent look at highly classified data used by the intelligence community to assess Soviet strategic forces in the yearly National Intelligence Estimates

Outside fucking experts. What does this indicate? Seriously, do you think this is good practice? This is not a politically motivated type of, I don't know, misinformation or lie?

I mean, maybe the USSR called unqualified civilians like writers and historians to make "assessments" of the US threat? Or no? You have something to say in defence of Team B?

And what of individuals who had no access to this special intelligence

They were a tool in the hands of those who had the access, but chose to either ignore the offered data, withhold information that they were informed of from the public or even actively support the false statements due to their own motives.

The conversation between you and I is not about whether or not the United States has ever conducted "paranoic aggressive expansionism" or cynical, self-serving manipulation of others

No, it is. Starglider claimed that the USSR was a unique threat desiring the violent destruction of Western governments. You hung onto his argument, and you first spoke of Soviet brutality in it's sphere of influence as some sort of proof of your or his argument, I don't know?

It also doesn't help you defend your positions.

Really? Well let me remind you:

I asked whether more confidence in one's defences would not lead to adverse effects like blundering into a nuclear war. It's not an issue of something working too well. It might work as shit. The important part is the perception.

I have not seen enough evidence that giving US political and military leadership more confidence in themselves is a tactic that leads to less wars. Or less debacles for that matter.

I later re-iterated it for everyone:

Being more confident in one's defence and/or one's military power leads to more eagerness to make war; even if the end result is disastrous. I have brought forward quite a few examples - Nazi Germany (Hitler's belief that the Aryan military prowess will somehow overcome industrial nations which could pound German Army into pulp and eventually did) confidence and overconfidence, result: war. USSR in the 1930s-1940s - overconfidence in the might of the Red Army. Result: military disasters in 1940 and 1941. Also, a military adventure in Finland. Which likewise ended as a disaster. USA 2003: Iraq. Overconfidence in it's technological and military superiority. Result: disaster and a military quagmire.

You are disputing my statement that greater confidence in one's military power and one's defences does not lead to (a) more chance to initiate a war, even blunder into one by chance (b) more arrogance and thus more possibility for blunder? Please do dispute it with a logical demonstration that greater confidence in one's defences and no fear of retaliation do not lead to greater capacity for a war.

That was my point. You and Starglider jumped all over it with bullshit fucking sidetracks.

That's right. And I'm not sidetracking any fucking more. Either you want to argue about the core argument, or you want to argue about something else. Maybe the doctrinal meaning of "communism"? In that case go ahead and make a thread in history. That's not an argument which is in any fucking way relevant to my point.

[Axis Kast]

We are speaking about a nation's application of communism, because that is far more important that the "core" of that ideology. Like I said, the communist "ideology" in various nations was remarkably different. Why should we pay attention to it's "core" then?

Because it is always portable, so long as the main crux remains the dichotomy between workers' interests and those of capital. The Soviet Union chose to repudiate World Revolution as a tactical measure. It couldn't afford to alienate the West so aggressively. Yet Communism, everywhere, presumed that the nature way of things was elimination - murder - of one group by another.

How about a simple fact: Symington, even after the reconaissance exposed the "missile gap" as bullshit, claimed brazenly that "nonetheless" it's dangerous and the US should go with the Kennedy military expansion plan. If anything, this indicates that regardless of the existence or nonexistence of the fake Soviet "superiority" Symington was hellbent on making that plan a reality. It betrays intent, not "lack of information".

You've provided evidence that Symington behaved illogically, not convincing proof that he lied for political reasons. The sources you provide indicate that he received intelligence discounting the Missile Gap, without addressing the problem that intelligence is always speculative, and that these products did contain caveats. Unfortunately for you, that means that you can't prove ill intent in disagreement.

They were a tool in the hands of those who had the access, but chose to either ignore the offered data, withhold information that they were informed of from the public or even actively support the false statements due to their own motives.

That, or some didn't trust the CIA. The fact that one can reference influential people like Wohlstetter in apparently credible opposition (at least in terms of intent and honesty) doesn't help you.

No, it is. Starglider claimed that the USSR was a unique threat desiring the violent destruction of Western governments. You hung onto his argument, and you first spoke of Soviet brutality in it's sphere of influence as some sort of proof of your or his argument, I don't know?

I responded to your argument that the Soviet Union did not adhere to an expansionistic ideology. The Soviet Union was as much an imperial state as the United States is and has been. It is the nature of size and power.

[K. A. Pital]

The Soviet Union chose to repudiate World Revolution as a tactical measure

It not only repudiated the World Revolution but moved to peaceful coexistence and claimed that transition to communism might be achieved through peace. That is a radical change of ideology, not some sort of "tactical measure".

You've provided evidence that Symington behaved illogically ... you can't prove ill intent in disagreement

"Behaved illogically"? When he agreed that the idea of the gap was false he still pushed for military expansion. That is not illogical. That is intentful militarism. Of course, you may say that this is illogical, but so what? Quite notably, if the question concerned the 1930's remilitarization of Nazi Germany, would you say that there is no ill intent and they were merely acting on the threat assessments which they produced (about being threatened by Britain, France, USSR and god knows by whom else) in good faith? Not misinforming their public? No?

The fact that one can reference influential people like Wohlstetter in apparently credible opposition (at least in terms of intent and honesty) doesn't help you.

Wohlstetter "influential"? Please. So what? Someone's influence doesn't mean he's not a scumbag, actually. But that aside, Wohlstetter wasn't in Team B. Team B was a specifically assembled team of political hacks who were not in the professional intelligence cirles, presided by an unqualified anti-communist writer. How fucking "qualified" could that be? It's not a matter of mere "disbelief" but clearly of political intent. And I'm not saying it was ill intent for the USSR. The people might have pursued their own goals. Like expansion of the military. It wasn't "evil", it was just... lobbying, corruption. Call it how you want.

I responded to your argument that the Soviet Union did not adhere to an expansionistic ideology.

No, retard: I never claimed that.

the stated official policy of the USSR was the destruction of all Western governments

Really? Care to provide the relevant quotes from the USSR's constitution or any other law, or even any post-World War II propaganda pamphlet? That looks like bullshit to me - because it is.

Starglider fucking lied. I don't care why, I don't care for what reasons. That's it. You chimed in with

Uh... the grand political theory of Communism...

Which was fucking irrelevant since Starglider was talking about the STATED OFFICIAL POLICY of the U.S.S.R. NOT about "communism as interpreted by it's fathers" or all the fucking useless, irrelevant bullshit you typed in this thread, wasting my time on a pointless fucking sidetrack.

But hey, let's compare:

the stated official policy of the USSR was the destruction of all Western governments

Really? Care to provide the relevant quotes from the USSR's constitution or any other law, or even any post-World War II propaganda pamphlet? That looks like bullshit to me - because it is.

my point that the ideology of post-World War II communist governments was not any more or less expansionist and agressive than usual nationalism

...your argument that the Soviet Union did not adhere to an expansionistic ideology.

You're a lying fuckface. Trying to twist my arguments? No fucking way.