| Cold War Geography | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 25 2013, 01:06 AM (220 Views) | |
| Basil Fawlty | Jul 25 2013, 01:06 AM Post #1 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I've been thinking about the "geography" of the Cold War and something struck me. The US and USSR were on opposite sides of the globe with fairly well defined spheres of influence. Might not this have been a contributor to the nervous peace that prevailed in 1949-91? Suppose instead that they had been in nearer proximity, like France and Britain were during the 1840s tension, or Britain and Germany in WWII. The reaction time for invasions, aerial attacks, and the delivery of missiles would have been much smaller. It was already too small in @. It seems like the world would have been on even more of a hair trigger and any accident, or a careless commander, could have started something much easier. Yet I don't know that this little facet has ever been recognized by historians. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jul 25 2013, 01:25 AM Post #2 |
![]()
The General
|
It probably did. After all, if the US and the USSR were as close as France and Britain, to use your example, then any malfunctions in NORAD and its Soviet equivalent (and there were at least 3 separate incidents, 2 in the US and at least 1 in the USSR) would probably result in a few nuclear-tipped missiled being lobbed into the other country simply because the reaction time would be so low that instant reaction would be required... |
![]() |
|
| John | Jul 26 2013, 04:38 PM Post #3 |
|
The evidence for this is apparent as displayed by the reaction of the United States to Soviet missiles being installed in Cuba. It was such an intolerable situation that the US was willing to start the war then and there rather than allow the missiles to become operational. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History · Next Topic » |







2:39 PM Jul 11