NationStates Jolt Archive

By best, I mean the president who did acted most reasonably to bring about a U.S. "victory".

Hmm, that's a good one. Certainly not Lyndon Johnson. John Kennedy stopped nuclear apocalypse, and pushed for peace with the Soviets, so he's one of my top candidates. Nixon also did pretty well it seems, Ford soldiered on effectively enough I'd say, and Carter was fairly reasonable when it came to the Cold War. Overall, I'd probably pick JFK.

Hmm, that's a good one. Certainly not Lyndon Johnson. John Kennedy almost caused a nuclear apocalypse, and pushed for peace with the Soviets, so he's one of my top candidates. Nixon also did pretty well it seems, Ford soldiered on effectively, and Carter was very reasonable when it came to the Cold War. Overall, I'd probably pick JFK.
Fixed.

I'd hate to say this, but Reagan. I can't say many good things about him, but he was willing to sit down with Gorbachev and negotiate as equals.

Learn before you lecture. If he had followed the advice of the military and CIA, nuclear war would have erupted. Instead, he managed to negotiate a deal with Khrushchev, and get the missiles removed. I'm reading a book that talked about this now, he and RFK drove themselves to exhaustion holding out against the military and getting a deal negotiated.

Learn before you lecture. If he had followed the advice of the military and CIA, nuclear war would have erupted. Instead, he managed to negotiate a deal with Khrushchev, and get the missiles removed.

He blockaded Cuba. They were about to launch a preemptive strike on the US. Because of Kennedy, the fate of most of the world rested on the head of a pin (So to speak). It was pure luck that we weren't all blasted with the full nuclear arsenals of the USSR and USA.

Nixon also did pretty well it seems,

I think that if we isolate his foreign policy (ending the Vietnam War, gaining China as an ally, patching-up relations with Russia by allowing wheat shipments, signing SALT I) from the rest of him (many people hate his internal methods) we find something pretty good. Of course, there are those who disagree with this, such as Gift of God, who pointed-out that Nixon did some pretty nasty things, like making the economy of Chile "scream", and prolonging the racist government in South Africa.

Kennedy is certainly a second in my book, though. Of course, I cannot forgive the Bay of Pigs or his moronic embargo of Cuba.

Reagan would rate higher with me if he did not spend so much money to accomplish what he did.

He blockaded Cuba. They were about to launch a preemptive strike on the US. Because of Kennedy, the fate of most of the world rested on the head of a pin (So to speak). It was pure luck that we weren't all blasted with the full nuclear arsenals of the USSR and USA.

It wasn't luck, it was Kennedy's negotiation with Khrushchev. He secured a blockade instead of invading the island, and starting a nuclear war. If he had listened to wackjobs like LeMay and rest of the generals (LeMay actually wanted nuclear war), we would have had nuclear war. In fact, one of LeMay's subordinates raised the alert of the Air Force (I believe it was the Air Force, memory's hazy on the issue) to just below the level for all-out nuclear war, which only provoked the Soviets further.

Parkus: The Bay of Pigs was a disaster, true. However, though Kennedy takes the blame for giving the go-ahead, the CIA gets the blame for the fiasco. They knew that Castro knew they were invading the island, but went ahead anyway, because they expected to be able to get Kennedy to send in air and naval support, forcing a showdown with the Soviets. They misjudged Kennedy though, and he refused to escalate.

He blockaded Cuba. They were about to launch a preemptive strike on the US. Because of Kennedy, the fate of most of the world rested on the head of a pin (So to speak). It was pure luck that we weren't all blasted with the full nuclear arsenals of the USSR and USA.

You know, I always wonder, why do people assume that once the first nuke has been launched, all the nuclear powers will just start firing wildly into the metaphorical air and destroy the world?

Alright, who voted LBJ?!

Alright, who voted LBJ?!

http://blog.kir.com/archives/lbj.jpg

Parkus: Looks excited doesn't he?

Parkus: Looks excited doesn't he?

You would be too, if you practiced escalatio.

Truman won the cold war. He set the working week to create the economic surplus that allowed the US to militarily outspend the COMECON block.

Of course the man was a complete shit for doing so. And he set the stage for all the later shenanigans. But I am sure that the billions of man hours lost to pointless work with no improvement of the standard of living was worth it.

No, actually Reagan won the Cold War. STAR WARS proved to the Russians that their style of running the economy could not compete with the United States. Just the fact that SDI was POSSIBLE in the near future for the US was enough to topple that house of termites known as the Soviet Union. If we had gotten another Carter, they might have been able to keep rebuilding the internal power supports. According to Natan Sharansky (who lived in the Soviet Union), Carter was the worst thing to happen to the people of Russia, and Nixon's overtures to the ChiCom's was the worst thing to happen to the Chinese People, because if he had continued the Economic Engagement Policy of the United States beforehand, it might have toppled and a Free China could have resulted.

In fact, I think I need to give my top 3 and bottom 3.

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower: He began the policies of Economic Engagement that Reagan used to finally bring down the USSR (plus, he's from Kansas)
2. Ronald Reagan: He finished what Eisenhower started via SDI, and showed Russia that their economic and political system could not stand in the long run (the wolf that blew the final wind)
3. JFK: He did good work with the Cuban Missile Crisis, despite almost causing it to escalate, and set up the Space Program, which would prove vital to endign the Cold War.

6. Nixon: Because of Nixon's opening of talks with China, a nation that was tottering similar to the Soviet Union during Reagan's reign was able to strengthen itself and keep itself in power (Nixon is still the most hated man in Taiwan because of that)
7. Jimmy Carter: Jimmy Carter almost undid everything that the ones before him did to bring down the Soviet Union.
8. LBJ: Before LBJ, the Black Family Unit was the strongest in the country. After the "Great Society," the vast majority of Black Families shattered, and the community with the lowest legitimate crime statistic (Most of those jailed where jailed for trying to get Civil Rights) became the one with the highest violent crime stats. And all because of Welfare.

Is this the same Natan Sharansky who helped convince Bush that invading Iraq was a splendid idea?

Also, quality of life in "Communist China" is currently better than "Free Russia."

Natan Sharansky wrote The Case for Democracy. Bush did what he did because of his own interpretation of the book. (Quite frankly, I think he did the right thing based off the Genocidal record of Saddam Hussein)

And honestly, I would rather live in Free Russia than Communist China. In Free Russia, they have (for now at least) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Self Defense, Private Property Rights, and various other freedoms. Russia may not be perfect, but before Putin, they where on the right path.

In China, they have permits that tell you where you can live, work, and sometimes even eat. If you are a person of faith or oppose the CCP, you are sent to re-education camps where those they can't brainwash are summarily executed. They have new ID requirements for Internet Cafe's that require all sorts of biometric and conventional Identification of all persons who use the Cafe in case someone commits a thought crime. Mothers pregnant with their third children are strapped to a table and subjected to forced abortions, and if they don't catch the child in the womb, the Commissars of the Party are not above summarily executing Third Children. And a fourth one can get the woman forcibly sterilized. That is just SOME of the horrors that Bloody Mao has unleashed on the people of China, I have an entire book of them if you make me brign you more examples.

Natan Sharansky wrote The Case for Democracy. Bush did what he did because of his own interpretation of the book. (Quite frankly, I think he did the right thing based off the Genocidal record of Saddam Hussein)

Some people may have benefited from the invasion of Iraq--the Kurds and Iranians come to mind--but Americans have not been among them.

Likewise, an escalation of the Cold War with China would not have helped America. And the foremost priority of the President of the United States is to advance the interests of the United States.

The Economist's Quality of Life Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_index): China is 60th. Russia is 105th, just below Botswana and above Uzbekistan. And this includes political freedoms as one of its factors.

Fixed.

No, you didnt fix it. Just injected your ignorance.

And honestly, I would rather live in Free Russia than Communist China. In Free Russia, they have (for now at least) Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Self Defense, Private Property Rights, and various other freedoms.

No they dont. Are you on crack?

Reagan won the cold war, but he was not a particularly good president. Not really sure about who I'd rate the best, they're all flawed in many ways, but the Marshall Plan under Truman brought a 20-year boom in Europe, although he was still a mega arsehole.

Fixed.
Not really, no. He got the Russians to back down in return for the US pulling missiles out of Turkey. That's some pretty good stuff right there.

I voted LBJ. Just kidding. I voted JFK. Here's my argument: JFK got the Soviets to back down AND won publicity for the US abroad. On the Bay of Pigs JFK was horrendously mislead by his advisors.

As to the Economist - they can suck it. Russia below Kyrgyzstan? Wow, just wow. Having actually been to both places, I will rate the Economist as "on crack". Quality of life can also be determined by a net migration rate, Krygyzstan's is "- 2.55" and Russia's is "+ 0.28". Ever since Putin kicked out Chevron for nearly destroying the Kamchatkan Region's Eco-system, the Economist has been after United Russia's blood. They even called the Kamchatkan Region's Ecosystem near collapse, "minor environmental problems". Nice to see how deeply they care about Vladivostok's population drinking filth instead of water. "Just a couple of dead toddlers, minor environmental problems, nothing to see here, moving on." Interesting, so Putin's poisoning of an ex-KGB guy (Litvinenko) is bad, whereas Chevron's attempt to poison Vladivostok's toddlers is "minor environmental problems". Economist - "fair and balanced".

My choice was either between Nixon or Reagan. I picked Nixon because he was open and willing to negotiate with other countries such as China.

I voted Jimmy Carter, mostly because I felt sorry that he got no other votes.
His human rights record was good, at least.

I like Eisenhower and JFK.

...I'll go with Eisenhower.

By best, I mean the president who did acted most reasonably to bring about a U.S. "victory".

Dwight D. Eisenhower. He set everything up, and left us a very nice legacy in the form of his highway system and other such things besides.

Reagan !!!

As to the Economist - they can suck it. Russia below Kyrgyzstan? Wow, just wow. Having actually been to both places, I will rate the Economist as "on crack".

According to the CIA World Factbook, life expectancy for a Russian man 59.19 years. In Kyrgyzstan it's 65.12 years. Quality of Life is based on lots of things; maybe your ratings system would be different than the EIU. I haven't been to either place, but the ranking is actually based on what it's like to be living there, not what it's like to visit. Most of us would probably rather visit Russia, since it's got cities and stuff.

Besides, my point was that life in Russia sucks more than life in China, and that we wouldn't necessarily have been doing the Chinese people a favor by trying to bankrupt their country with a Cold War.

You know, I always wonder, why do people assume that once the first nuke has been launch, all the nuclear powers will just start firing wildly into the metaphorical air and destroy the world?

That's not exactly how it would work. Through much of it, it was mainly the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. that would be firing.

But basically, once a nuke goes, the concept is "Hey my enemy is probably sending everything he's got at me, so I'd better do it too!"

Most of us would probably rather visit Russia, since it's got cities and stuff.

Because everybody in Kyrgyzstan lives in yurts. :rolleyes:

Because everybody in Kyrgyzstan lives in yurts. :rolleyes:

Hey, the flag of Kyrgyzstan has a yurt on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan). Nothing against Kyrgyzstan, but Bishkek isn't high on my must-visit list.
You know, I always wonder, why do people assume that once the first nuke has been launch, all the nuclear powers will just start firing wildly into the metaphorical air and destroy the world?
Because both sides were set to launch-on-warning. The way to deter a nuclear exchange was to ensure that the cost would be too high for both sides (Mutually Assured Destruction). It's what game theorists call a Nash Equilibrium.

Because both sides were set to launch-on-warning. The way to deter a nuclear exchange was to ensure that the cost would be too high for both sides (Mutually Assured Destruction). It's what game theorists call a Nash Equilibrium.

Yes, but why would it destroy THE WHOLE WORLD? Why would the Soviets go "Hey! The US just nuked us! We're gonna retaliate! And also, launch against Congo, Indonesia, Uruguay and Bangladesh just for the sake of it!"

I think that at worst, two countries would be destroyed and the others would have to deal with the consequences, while it's probably more likely that one or a few nukes would go off and then both sides would say "Oh crap, what did we just do?" and then all hostilities would cease.

Yes, but why would it destroy THE WHOLE WORLD? Why would the Soviets go "Hey! The US just nuked us! We're gonna retaliate! And also, launch against Congo, Indonesia, Uruguay and Bangladesh just for the sake of it!"

I think that at worst, two countries would be destroyed and the others would have to deal with the consequences, while it's probably more likely that one or a few nukes would go off and then both sides would say "Oh crap, what did we just do?" and then all hostilities would cease.

Ever heard of Nuclear Winter? (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf)

Yes, but why would it destroy THE WHOLE WORLD? Why would the Soviets go "Hey! The US just nuked us! We're gonna retaliate! And also, launch against Congo, Indonesia, Uruguay and Bangladesh just for the sake of it!"To start with, nuclear winter and radioactive fallout. And it wouldn't be "the US just nuked us." It would be "our early warning systems have detected an enemy launch. And all of our nuclear missiles have been automatically launched in response. Damn."

I think that at worst, two countries would be destroyed and the others would have to deal with the consequences, while it's probably more likely that one or a few nukes would go off and then both sides would say "Oh crap, what did we just do?" and then all hostilities would cease.
That's within the realm of imagination, but most analysis has come to the former conclusion, and I'm glad we didn't have to find out.

Ever heard of Nuclear Winter? (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf)

It's theory, not fact, the numbers vary.

And it wouldn't be "the US just nuked us." It would be "our early warning systems have detected an enemy launch. And all of our nuclear missiles have been automatically launched in response. Damn."

Well... that did actually happen. It's not just automated, it came down to a human operator. Who correctly decided that it was a computer and didn't launch.

Alright, who voted LBJ?!

I did. Viva civil rights!

(and someone else did before me)

Millard Fillmore..

Well... that did actually happen. It's not just automated, it came down to a human operator. Who correctly decided that it was a computer and didn't launch.

Because they realized that it was a false positive. In the event of an actual nuclear launch, you can bet there would be massive retaliation.

I voted Gerald Ford.

The best president is the one who stays out of the newspapers.

I would say Dwight D. Eisenhower, due to his successful expansion of US interests and successful containment of the spread of Soviet influence during his time in office. He also greatly invested in the improvement of US infrastructure, the expansion of the nuclear weapons arsenal and conventional arms, all of which would lead to the prosperity and security of later years that was so critical to defeating the Soviet Union and the communist system around the world.

I think people forget that by the time Reagan was in office, communism was dead in the water. When Eisenhower was in office, it was a real, viable, and dynamic threat that could have achieved many deleterious things around the world.

I voted Gerald Ford.
As did I...
The best president is the one who stays out of the newspapers.
I only did it because he had the lowest number of votes...

Ever heard of Nuclear Winter? (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf)

You couldn't just link it to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Winter)? No...you had to be all fancy schamncy with your sciency pdf report thingy. :p

You couldn't just link it to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Winter)? No...you had to be all fancy schamncy with your sciency pdf report thingy. :p

I could have, but I felt a "sciency pdf report thingy" would hold more weight...

Of course it was dismissed out of hand, so I could have saved myself some effort...

I could have, but I felt a "sciency pdf report thingy" would hold more weight...

Of course it was dismissed out of hand, so I could have saved myself some effort...

Exactly, Now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

According to the CIA World Factbook, life expectancy for a Russian man 59.19 years. In Kyrgyzstan it's 65.12 years. Quality of Life is based on lots of things; maybe your ratings system would be different than the EIU. I haven't been to either place, but the ranking is actually based on what it's like to be living there, not what it's like to visit. Most of us would probably rather visit Russia, since it's got cities and stuff.

Besides, my point was that life in Russia sucks more than life in China, and that we wouldn't necessarily have been doing the Chinese people a favor by trying to bankrupt their country with a Cold War.

The problem with Russia is the Caucasian Region, where the quality of life is much lower then in other parts of Russia. Also, when I visit, I don't just go to the touristy sities. I'm a Cosmopolitan Traveler.

Ever heard of Nuclear Winter? (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900067303_1990067303.pdf)

Wrong link!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84Ud3V9NPw8

Exactly, Now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

That's why I don't link too often. People go - oh it's just a theory. It maybe 99% accurate, but there's that 1%!

Also I do agree with Brains on this one: "oh shit, launch detected, there go our nukes!" is the likely scenario. Can we not find this out though, please, I really, really don't want to know?!

Yes, but why would it destroy THE WHOLE WORLD? Why would the Soviets go "Hey! The US just nuked us! We're gonna retaliate! And also, launch against Congo, Indonesia, Uruguay and Bangladesh just for the sake of it!"

I think that at worst, two countries would be destroyed and the others would have to deal with the consequences, while it's probably more likely that one or a few nukes would go off and then both sides would say "Oh crap, what did we just do?" and then all hostilities would cease.

First that's the point of MAD.
second not just russia and the US. would have been NATO and Warsaw. China would have been a wild card. pre Nixion china would have sided with USSR after Nixion China would have likely been nuked by the USSR. so your looking at north America, Europe, Asia nuked. likely the mid east would have been nuked as well as that was pretty much divided up with soviet leaning and Western leaning groups.
South America, Africa, and Oceania (including Aus) would have survived somewhat. though nuclear Fall out and reduce food production in those regions points to massive upheavals there. Humans may survive but our society might not.

JFK probably, he may have sucked a little, but at least he prevented a nuclear war.