In 1990, the fall of the Soviet Union was seen as a great victory for the United States. We had survived the evils of communism, they say. We prevailed, they lost.
So what is worse off now than it was thirteen years ago?
The world is definitely, without a doubt, less stable. Former soviet WMD components are floating around on the black market and it would be much easier to acquire enough parts now than it would have been in the 80s. Former soviet scientists, some of the brightest intellectuals in the world, can't afford food or housing and are available to the highest bidder. Soviet engineering is essentially public domain - planes and ships, some superior to ours.
The existance of imminent conflict between nation-states could be seen as much more bearable than between a nation-state and a rouge enemy. The principles of MAD held the world together for fifty years. Conflicts like Vietnam and Korea were the result of a containment policy, but nuclear war was averted. The fact that both countries had everything to lose kept people to their senses and their fingers off the triggers. Global conflict was avoided. Terrorists, on the other hand, don't have anything to lose. Bin Laden would not think twice about detonating a nuclear warhead in NYC if he saw it as feasible. Is it arguable that we live in a world now where nuclear attack is more likely than it was in the 80s?
The existance of an equally capable but hostile enemy brought a lot of good to this country. For example, take the space race and the Apollo project. The apollo rocket is the only rocket that has a perfect track record - not a single one has been lost. The space race led to the minaturization and computerization of the world. It also led to incredible strides in materials science. The biggest problem with early designs was getting them back to earth without burning up in the atmosphere - materials that we use in our daily lives are a direct result of the need to bring spacecraft to earth without burning up.
Now, we live in a world of where a single nation is so militarily powerful that words like 'negotation' don't seem to be in the vocabulary. Entities such as the UN have no bearing in the world anymore. The existance of NATO no longer seems justified. Money that was spent on the space race to achieve technical superiority and a sense of national pride is now being wasted on medicare reform, which benefits few at the cost of many.
Obviously this is not proofread nor edited for clarity, but I am interested in hearing opinions.
So what is worse off now than it was thirteen years ago?
The world is definitely, without a doubt, less stable. Former soviet WMD components are floating around on the black market and it would be much easier to acquire enough parts now than it would have been in the 80s. Former soviet scientists, some of the brightest intellectuals in the world, can't afford food or housing and are available to the highest bidder. Soviet engineering is essentially public domain - planes and ships, some superior to ours.
The existance of imminent conflict between nation-states could be seen as much more bearable than between a nation-state and a rouge enemy. The principles of MAD held the world together for fifty years. Conflicts like Vietnam and Korea were the result of a containment policy, but nuclear war was averted. The fact that both countries had everything to lose kept people to their senses and their fingers off the triggers. Global conflict was avoided. Terrorists, on the other hand, don't have anything to lose. Bin Laden would not think twice about detonating a nuclear warhead in NYC if he saw it as feasible. Is it arguable that we live in a world now where nuclear attack is more likely than it was in the 80s?
The existance of an equally capable but hostile enemy brought a lot of good to this country. For example, take the space race and the Apollo project. The apollo rocket is the only rocket that has a perfect track record - not a single one has been lost. The space race led to the minaturization and computerization of the world. It also led to incredible strides in materials science. The biggest problem with early designs was getting them back to earth without burning up in the atmosphere - materials that we use in our daily lives are a direct result of the need to bring spacecraft to earth without burning up.
Now, we live in a world of where a single nation is so militarily powerful that words like 'negotation' don't seem to be in the vocabulary. Entities such as the UN have no bearing in the world anymore. The existance of NATO no longer seems justified. Money that was spent on the space race to achieve technical superiority and a sense of national pride is now being wasted on medicare reform, which benefits few at the cost of many.
Obviously this is not proofread nor edited for clarity, but I am interested in hearing opinions.
Facebook
Twitter