When was the world most safe?

CocoGdog

Senior member
May 31, 2000
848
0
0
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.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
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.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
You can take all of your topic nominees off the list..the nature of sovereign nations, and the inherent tensions between them, arguably creates a scenario where the threat of war is always present.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
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.

The cold war started about May 10th 1945 :D
But we were probably the safest then because nobody had the bomb yet. If the Soviets came a trucking we went a bombing.

I'd say after the Soviets detonated their first nuke our safety was lost again.

 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
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".
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
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.
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
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/
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
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/

As president he is ultimately responsible, as many on this forum are so fond of pointing out.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
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.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
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.

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.

I would argue that the Truman/Eisenhower years were among the most dangerous because at that time the Soviets were at the apex of their power, and were exporting their ideology all over the world. Plus the lingering threat of a massive steamroll over the rest of europe with or without nukes.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
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


 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
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

Early 30's? You have depression and the rise of Hitler. Although of all the choices given, that, the early-mid 90's, and the late 40's were probably when the world was "safest" if you equate American safety with world safety.


 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
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.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
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.

I tend to agree that there were plenty of external threats during Clinton's term. But Reagan? Come one now.

America has pursued an agrressive foreign policy since the end of the second world war.

Realistically, there has been no period of 'safety' since just after the British gave up. And even then America only sat around for a few years before they started picking fights.

We love to claim that modern western civilzations have become peace-loving and civilized, but it's all BS.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
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.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.
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.

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.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
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.

The Mig was an example of how the Soviets were on par in terms of technology with us and their air force certainly wasn't non-existant. I never said they were a delivery system for nukes.

Tensions were at their highest during the early Cold War years, which by default make them the most dangerous.

By the late 50's the Russians had SAM's which would/could decimate our bombers, and a massive and competent fighter contingent to their air force, and their own bombers to deliver nukes to our soil.

Before that the Russians could have launched attacks on us in Europe or Japan any number of places. Had they done so we certainly wouldn't have been dropping nukes all over Europe.

I just completely disagree with the notion that SAC being dominant somehow made the world safer.

 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The answer is Clinton in this particular instance.
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.

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.

I think just about everyone here is defining safe in different terms.

Risk of world-wide nuclear annihilation during Clinton's years ~ 0

Risk of two super powers deciding to have a war by proxy in a foreign land during Clinton's years ~ 0

I think these are two of the most important characteristics in defining what having a safe world actually is. Not meaning is only the US safe, but rather stability throughout the entire world. There will always be localized regional conflicts, but these don't compare to the prospects of WWIII or something similar.

All things considered the genocides in the 90's were pretty pale when compared to previous or current on-going genocides.
 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
Answer is still Reagan. Who, along with Thatcher, brought the Evil Empire to its knees without firing a shot? Answer: not Slick Willy

Out of all our Presidents, we were safest under Polk. but he's not an option. I'm following the rules.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Risk of world-wide nuclear annihilation during Clinton's years ~ 0
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.
 

johnnobts

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2005
1,105
0
71
I guess the real question I'm answering is which president strove to make the world (but America most importantly) safer, not just enjoyed a safe tenure.