Military Draft Coming back?

[jgruber]

You're kidding, right?  The cold war was peace?

Vietnam
Korea
just to mention a couple.

So how would you explain those as peace?

To ensure the peace, you must prepare for war

This is something we hear often.  But look at the record.  Has it worked?  Ever?

It's called the Cold War

[Findedeux]

Typo:should have read Palestinians and Israelis will be killing each other.

Anyway, Bush isn't dumb enough (unfortunately) to try and enact a draft. Then you might actually see the youth of our generation vote for once to kick his butt out of office.

[tahoetahoe]

Let's face it...the Republicans miss the days of the Cold War and they want to bring it back...what better excuse to pointlessly build up our military.  How else can they better help their friends win military contracts. 

And no......I would consider the Cold War to be peace time.  Cuban missle crisis anyone?

[thechoson]

You're kidding, right?  The cold war was peace?

Vietnam
Korea
just to mention a couple.

So how would you explain those as peace?

As opposed to WWI and WWII?  Besides, all I am referring to is the USSR and the USA (the 2 Great Powers).  They never warred with each other.  How do you explain that?

To ensure the peace, you must prepare for war

This is something we hear often.  But look at the record.  Has it worked?  Ever?

It's called the Cold War

[NerdyLaw]

The cold war did work. No nukes were fired an the Soviet Union was dismantled. If we had disarmed unilateral, I shudder to think what might have happened. Of the two wars you mentioned, Vietnam could be seen as a war by-proxy with the SU, but Korea was definately the US/UN against NK and China. Vietnam is a difficult issue to sum up in a couple of sentences, but it was our own fault that we got dragged into that quagmire and got the Soviets involved in any way.

But here is an interesting thought to mull over: Every time there is a problem in the world, who do people call first? When we DO respond, are we hailed as heroes? Are we vilified? What would happen if we stopped responding to these types of requests? I'm not saying that I think one way or the other. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

[jgruber]

The question is whether it brought peace.  It is very difficult to say it brought peace with over 57,000 American killed in Vietnam alone.


Whether it worked depends on how you define 'worked'. 

By the definition you offer, it worked.  I can offer other definitions that will show it failed.  Like did it ensure freedom?  Domestic spying, red scares, black lists.  Hmmmmmmmmm.

The cold war did work. No nukes were fired an the Soviet Union was dismantled. If we had disarmed unilateral, I shudder to think what might have happened. Of the two wars you mentioned, Vietnam could be seen as a war by-proxy with the SU, but Korea was definately the US/UN against NK and China. Vietnam is a difficult issue to sum up in a couple of sentences, but it was our own fault that we got dragged into that quagmire and got the Soviets involved in any way.

But here is an interesting thought to mull over: Every time there is a problem in the world, who do people call first? When we DO respond, are we hailed as heroes? Are we vilified? What would happen if we stopped responding to these types of requests? I'm not saying that I think one way or the other. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

[thechoson]

The question is whether it brought peace.  It is very difficult to say it brought peace with over 57,000 American killed in Vietnam alone.


Whether it worked depends on how you define 'worked'. 

By the definition you offer, it worked.  I can offer other definitions that will show it failed.  Like did it ensure freedom?  Domestic spying, red scares, black lists.  Hmmmmmmmmm.

The cold war did work. No nukes were fired an the Soviet Union was dismantled. If we had disarmed unilateral, I shudder to think what might have happened. Of the two wars you mentioned, Vietnam could be seen as a war by-proxy with the SU, but Korea was definately the US/UN against NK and China. Vietnam is a difficult issue to sum up in a couple of sentences, but it was our own fault that we got dragged into that quagmire and got the Soviets involved in any way.

But here is an interesting thought to mull over: Every time there is a problem in the world, who do people call first? When we DO respond, are we hailed as heroes? Are we vilified? What would happen if we stopped responding to these types of requests? I'm not saying that I think one way or the other. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks.

Success is measured by the fact that the USSR and USA NEVER WARRED.  You challenged my statement that preparing for war ensures peace.  The USSR and USA ensured peace with each other because they prepared to nuke each other to death.  Nuclear deterrence.  Look at other examples throughout history.  The greatest period of peace between the powers of Europe was the time between the Concert of Vienna (1816?) until the Crimean War, and arguably the wars of Bismarck in the 1870.  During that time, there was a balance of power which ensured peace between the great powers. 

As for Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, isn't it interesting that the US and USSR never confronted each other directly in these conflicts?  Remember, small allies have driven great powers into destructive wars with each other in the past (try WWI).  When Korea was threatening to escalate, Eisenhower threatened nukes, which brought the Chinese to the bargaining table.  Vietnam was not taken to the next level (nukes) because the USSR would be sure to respond against one of the USA's allies.  Same thing in Afghanistan. The USA did provide stingers, but they directly did not get involved because of the fear of escalation against the USSR.  In WWI, this was not the case.  So the USA and USSR preparing to kill each other ensured peace between those two, and kept those proxy wars from escalating to World Wars.

Yes, 57,000 Americans died in Vietnam.  Try 500,000 in WWII.  Try 20 MILLION dead on the Soviet Side during WWII.  Almost 40 million worldwide during the less than 10 years of WWII.  The Cold War claimed casulaties, but nowhere near the numbers of WWI or WWII.

JeffJoe, if you ever have time, you might want to check out Gaddis' Long Peace or anything written by Kenneth Waltz. Kind of explains this point of view better than I ever could.

[jgruber]

I've been stuffing my brain with history since I was old enough to hold a book.  You bring up a number of interesting points, but none explain how the cold war could be consider an era of peace. 

Relative numbers of dead don't.

Lack of direct military confrontation doesn't.

Explanations abound, but you can't call a period of time filled with war an eara of peace. 

Whether you think the cold war strategy was good or bad, whether it worked or not, the fact is there was not peace.

[NerdyLaw]

I am not sure what definition you are using for peace. We did experience a period of general tranquility and lack of armed conflict with the USSR. Political strong arming, vying for a leg up, and the war of words will ALWAYS exist on the international stage. It is bred by jealousy and people worrying about who has a bigger penis. Can a Utopian peace exist? I think not due to human nature.

The important part to note is that during this time, the general welfare of the United States was maintained with the main exception being Vietnam. We (the US) were obsessed with this ridiculous domino theory that never manifested due to the self-destructive nature of communism. That was our bed, and we were forced to lay in it.

When measuring the effect of any conflict, I'm not sure why it is NOT appropriate to use casualties as the chief unit of measure. That is what sperates great conflicts from trivial conflicts.

[jgruber]

Peace at a minimum would be the absence of war.  Not fighting the USSR directly would not be sufficient.  General tranquility?  That's like being a little pregnant.  War is war.  Peace is peace. 

Being ready for war was offered as the way to peace.  I asked for an example and the cold war was offered.

During the cold war, we fought wars.  By definition it was not peace. 

And there are not trivial conflicts that destroy human life.  I lost family members in Vietnam.  Does it make it less tragic than World War I or II. 

I am not sure what definition you are using for peace. We did experience a period of general tranquility and lack of armed conflict with the USSR. Political strong arming, vying for a leg up, and the war of words will ALWAYS exist on the international stage. It is bred by jealousy and people worrying about who has a bigger penis. Can a Utopian peace exist? I think not due to human nature.

The important part to note is that during this time, the general welfare of the United States was maintained with the main exception being Vietnam. We (the US) were obsessed with this ridiculous domino theory that never manifested due to the self-destructive nature of communism. That was our bed, and we were forced to lay in it.

When measuring the effect of any conflict, I'm not sure why it is NOT appropriate to use casualties as the chief unit of measure. That is what sperates great conflicts from trivial conflicts.