.jpg)
Posted on 11/30/2016 11:58:08 AM PST by pabianice
This is a good example of Liberal Psychosis. It bemoans the making poorer an America which out-spent the Russians on Cold War systems and equipment. Somehow, to the author, having defeated the USSR in the Cold War, has made America poorer, worse-off. Clearly, he wishes Russia had won the Cold War, to make America richer, more successful.
I have not seen a more stupid article in a long time. Thank you, Washington Post, for reassuring us that Liberals know absolutely nothing about the real world. merit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The stupid, it burns!!
The USA would not be dominated. As for 357 warheads on each capital city, it wasn’t capital cities but military installations that were of concern here. How many apples equals this bunch of bananas?
You can’t spell “useful idiot” without idiot.
They don’t understand the mutant, cancerlike illiberal “liberalism” which is not at all like old fashioned liberal philosophy. The former was built on bullying. The latter typified the philosophy of the American founders.
If you spent money to buy a Washington Post newspaper, then you would be poorer and stupid.
Interesting that the purveyors of propaganda (on both sides) ensured that the Cold War lasted longer that it should have. The commies in New York and elsewhere eventually “out-lied” the commies in Moscow. To them it was just a game, never-mind the human sacrifice and death it propagated.
The First Amendment has degenerated from free speech to burning the American Flag. Good job Lefties!
“Instead, I see these things as part of a global semiotics, a secret language in which we collectively and unconsciously speak to one another. These places, defunct missile silos, collapsing early warning radar stations, and the infrastructure that was built to support them, are words in a sentence that expresses our priorities, our fears and our willingness to engage those fears on a primal level”.
Of course the leftist completely misses the greater point, these things are now no longer needed and have been discarded. How do you interpret those semiotics? The destructive power of those weapons were never used, the strategy of mutually assured destruction worked. Our side prevailed, which the author probably views as the greatest tragedy.
Not WE....THEY.
These LIB idiots are good for a laugh. Their lunacy is pathetic and untreatable.
But, but, but... I own a Pet Shop just FULL of Parrots....
The false assumptions about reality contained in the article are stunning.
I visited the Museum of the Strategic Missile Forces (http://www.comtourist.com/history/pervomaysk-icbm-museum/) in Ukraine a few years ago. The museum is a former ICBM site which has been decommissioned, all of the ICBMs removed, and one command silo left more or less intact (the communications cables to it have been cut so that it cannot issue any commands to the no longer extant missiles. The base had 88 ICBMs and approximately one command silo for approximately each of ten ICBMs.
The site has several original buildings (something like World War 2 barracks) which contain exhibits. One can then enter an underground tunnel which lies a few meters below the surface and walk to the command silo. One then descends into the habitable part of the silo, which is at the bottom.
The museum also has several large vehicles which were used to load missiles or command modules into the silos as well as the outer shells of several types of Soviet ICBMs.
Several things struck me during my visit - first, the finishing of the concrete in the tunnel was very uneven and of low quality. My interpretation is that the USSR was too poor to spend money on a non-essential aspect of the base.
Second, the top of the silo contained three meters of paraffin (the silo was 45 meters deep). The significance is that the paraffin will moderate (slow down) neutrons from nuclear explosions so that they will be easily absorbed before reaching the bottom of the silo where the command crew is located. Obviously, the plan was for the crew to survive a nuclear attack.
Lastly, echoing to some extent the author of the article, a helluva lot of money was spent by both sides on nuclear weapons. It would have been nice if it could have been spent on something else more productive. However, MAD worked and the weapons were never fired. We haven’t had a major European war since nuclear weapons were first detonated, and a major European war, even without nuclear weapons, is always an expensive proposition. I don’t consider the investment in nuclear weapons to be a waste of money under the circumstances.
The nuclear arms race was started by a Democrat lie to get a lightweight Democrat elected in 1960.
That doesn't mean they weren't used. Over 99% of the useful work a weapon does is by its mere presence.
Agreed!
The mentally ill do some strange things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.