To: Luis GonzalezWoofDog123, the Soviet Union was a strong autocratic regime.
"... I am interested in Russia having a government strong enough to control their extensive nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon stockpiles. The previous post-gorbachev government has apparently not been successful in this. I think that in terms of the interests of the United States, it is paramount that no more of the former soviet NBC stockpiles disappear. If it takes an autocratic regime to see to this, then that is what it takes ..."
# 29 by WoofDog123
**********************************
Do you think the United States would be safer if the Soviet Union hadn't fallen?
"WoofDog123, the Soviet Union was a strong autocratic regime.
Do you think the United States would be safer if the Soviet Union hadn't fallen?"
This is a complex question. Your question leaves out some important qualifiers which would impact my answer (such as WHICH soviet government, gorbachev or the coup that briefly deposed him), but in general, I would say 'possibly.' Despite some VERY close calls (cuba was the closest, I think), we and the soviets managed to not destroy each other. Proxy wars took place, geopolitical chess, and I have read that the russians put nukes in some US cities. Nonetheless, for 40+ years of soviet nukes, even when run by one of the biggest mass-murderering psychopaths in history, the US was not ever directly at war with the USSR. And importantly, nothing I have read implies the USSR sold nukes, nuclear material or any biological stuff on the international market. My understanding is that this took place upon and after the dissolution of the USSR and/or whatever controls were in place at that time.
One of the first risk factors against my answer is if (BIG if) a successful coup against gorbachev had decided to refuse to leave/take any action in any of the warsaw pact countries whose governments had fallen, and who, for the most part, had asked soviet troops to leave.
The current enemy is MUCH less rational, does not subscribe to MAD, and presumably does have nukes, or components. If they don't, one of their sponsor states does or might soon. I assume the main reason there has not been a clear terrorist attack since 2001 in the US is because at some level it has been noticed that when the US was hit, 2 islamic or arab governments fell, and 2 countries were occupied, and still are.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think the odds of a catastrophic attack against one or more US cities is higher or lower than it was, say, in 1990? I think it is certainly higher.