Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truman, right after WW 2 had ended and the cold war had not started.
At that time there was nearly no threat of any type of mass warfare on the planet.
Korea started and since then the threat level has gone up and down, but never as low as then.
Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.
What? If you believe JFK "nearly started a nuclear war with Russia", you're not much of a "history buff".
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.
What? If you believe JFK "nearly started a nuclear war with Russia", you're not much of a "history buff".
I wouldn't say that JFK was totally responsible for it, as the Soviets were the ones to place the missiles on Cuba, but everyone wasn't kicking back drinking Mai Tais while him and Khrushchev were ratcheting up to WWIII.
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: CocoGdog
Right now we are "safe" but the "danger" of terrorism lurks. But if you're a history buff, JFK nearly started a nuclear war with Russia.
What? If you believe JFK "nearly started a nuclear war with Russia", you're not much of a "history buff".
I wouldn't say that JFK was totally responsible for it, as the Soviets were the ones to place the missiles on Cuba, but everyone wasn't kicking back drinking Mai Tais while him and Khrushchev were ratcheting up to WWIII.
The Joint Chiefs/Military Industrial Complex were itching for a war. Kennedy was trying to avert one.
http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I would somewhat say that nothing post Hiroshima is safe---but nukes raise the stakes on human history that is largely painted by war---with the victors writing history.
But Truman and Ike had it the easiest---at that time the big boogie man---the Soviets had enough nukes to be a threat---but no real means of delivery to the USA---a legacy of WW2 left the Soviets with a potent force of tanks---but little or nothing in terms of an Air Force.----and at any time---SAC could have devastated the Soviet Union with total impunity. The ICBM changed it all, but even in Kennedy's time, the ICBM technology was not mature enough to pose mutual assured destruction for the USA. By Nixon's time, mutual assured destruction was a reality for both sides. And even as the cold war ended and Russian missiles are no longer targeting US cities---they can be re targeted in a matter of minutes.
Sooner or later some nutty world leader will use Nukes to attack another country---right now, my main worry, in that department, is GWB.
So we have stayed safe for now----its kinda like the fellow who fell of the top of a 100 story sky scraper--as he fell past the 50'th story, he remarked to himself---so far so good.
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Probably in the early 30s...
of the choices you give us I would have to say none qualify.
JFK through Reagan the threat of the Soviets was most dominant
Bush, threat of conflict, and actual conflict in Middle East was most evident for us
Clinton, threat of conflict, and actual conflict in Middle east, followed by Balkan's war
Bush, conflict in Middle East, terrorism reaching beyond that area of course
Originally posted by: johnnobts
The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.
_____________________________
ha ha ha ha ha....lol...hahahahaha.... sorry, ha ha ahha.... fell out of my chair... answer is reagan buddy boy.
clinton: WTC bombing here at home, US embassy abroad, 911 being planned out, not to mention war in the balkans.
Hardly. Ethnic violence in the Balkans and other former Soviet satellite states at the end of the Cold War...the failed Somalia mission...the rise of Islamic terrorist groups with the resources and means to strike on American soil.The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To ayabe,
who wrote---What are you talking about? The Soviets had a great air force post WWII, Mig-15 ever heard of it? You know the plane that scared the crap out of us in the beginning of Korea and was better than what we had in every way.
You are correct that the Soviets started developing an air force post WW2---but that daunted mig you are talking about did not pose a threat in terms of delivering nukes to the US--the range of a mig is supershort compared to the distance and cargo weights involved in flying from Russia to the USA.
The early cold war threat came only from SAC---the Russians simply could not have even dented a first strike.----but when playing poker or in nature---you puff yourself up to make your self bigger than you are---which Kruschev did.---and our military industrial complex loved him all the way to the bank.
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Hardly. Ethnic violence in the Balkans and other former Soviet satellite states at the end of the Cold War...the failed Somalia mission...the rise of Islamic terrorist groups with the resources and means to strike on American soil.The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.
On the economic front, America enjoyed a brief era of prosperity under Clinton, although arguably not because of anything he specifically did...however, the world stage is a completely different story, and if anything, Clinton, as did Bush Sr., failed to define America's role in a post Cold War world.
JFK...he comes off the list because of Bay of Pigs, a near nuclear slugmatch with the Soviets, Vietnam, etc.
Reagan...hard to say really...he certainly was a master of Cold War politics, but American wars on the periphery certainly layed the foundation for instability in many parts of the Third World.
A better question is not when the world was most safe, but rather which Presidents truly grasped and successfully mitigated threats to American interests.
I would say Lincoln and FDR are two Presidents who stand out as two noteable examples.
True, although the 90s also marked the rise of rogue or unstable nations seeking to achieve nuclear capabilities...while the Soviet American nuclear slugmatch was no longer a concern, nuclear proliferation was definitely a concern...and seemingly ignored.Risk of world-wide nuclear annihilation during Clinton's years ~ 0
