Does the state of ‘Cold War’ still exist?
115250
i guess in a way it does but now the blocs with america have greatly reduced\nrussia although not against USA but it does mind the US intervention in its affairs\nwith many opposing US including countries like france n germany n russia to some extent\nbut the cold state actually is prevalent in relations between washington n beijing\nUS advice is simply not welcome in the land of the dragon
433051
I agree with most of the results. I'm a bit iffy on the UK and Russia battle.\n\nUK has better weapons (non-nuclear), meanwhile Russia has a higher population. I think in the long run, Russia might take that battle.\n\n\n.... and I disagree with above response. It's proven that US can't defeat Vietnam. Open a history book.
99369
Have you heard of the MAD doctrine?  The doctrine has deterred nuclear war for the past 60 years.  Although there are falacies in the doctrine, ie, we could disguise nuclear devices that could avoid detection.  The automatic triggers in the Russian and Chinese early warning system would presumably deter us from a pre-emptive strike as people have mentioned above.
80248
Because, unlike "hot" wars, a "cold" war features relatively little direct military conflict.  The US and Soviet Union never fought directly on each other's native soil, but instead conflicted via policies, diplomatics, embargoes, and the occasional "offsite" military confrontation (e.g. Korea and Vietnam).
126963
Always has been.  Even during the Cold War the very threat of Nuclear War was a challenge to World Peace, even as that same threat helped avert innumerable conflicts.\n\nThe difference between the East / West Arms Race of the last century and the newer purusuits of North Korea and Iran is those in control in the Soviet Union and the United States were predictable and level-head leaders with well established Governments, chains of command, etc.\n\nToday's nuclear wanna-be's are in very unstable environments.  Especially in the Middle East, where Terrorism, Despotism and Civil Unrest are the rule.  \n\nThe world survived the Cold War by virtue of Mutual Annihilation.  Both the East and the West wanted to survive whatever was begun.\n\nThe promise of Virgins and the opportunity to go Golfing with Muhammed creates an environment where one side is not only willing to use such destructive powers, they are also encouraged to sacrifice themselves in doing so!
244362
The Iron Curtain as we knew it is gone.\n\nAnd yes, there still are large differences between North and South in the USA.
854066
Yes, but not a very good one. When was the last time they won a shooting war without the help of the Soviet Union, Britain and Australia? I know about Grenada; I mean against a real army.
1000974
The term "Cold War" emerged from the lack of miltary action during the war. Although there was massive tension throughout the period the war was "Cold".\n\nThe origins of the term "Cold War" are debated. The term was used hypothetically by George Orwell in 1945, though not in reference to the struggle between the USA and the Soviet Union, which had not yet been initiated. American politician Bernard Baruch began using the term in April 1947 but it first came into general use in September 1947 when journalist Walter Lippmann published a series of newspaper columns (and books) on US-Soviet tensions entitled The Cold War.
397998
Not necessarily a world power as it once stood. The Soviet Union or "Russia" is now a remnant of its former self. The poverty caused by the former Communist empire still remains however, as does the nuclear weapons. Russia still plays an important role in world politics in organizations such as the G8.
429663
The cold war ended because the newly instated leader, gorbachev, started giving the satelite countries more freedoms and it steadily dissolved from there. That's at least a base for you. It's along those lines. George Bush was on better terms with him than before as well.
844411
your absolutly right, it was around 5 per cent that were shot down, you see the scuds though were built in the 70's and 80's had the best soviet technology incoperated in the scuds. if a scud was in flight to its target and a missle was fired at it, it would first try to jam the incomeing missile then when the missile was close enough the scud would release a dummy war head to confuse the incomeing missile,thus the interceptor would go for the dummy war head while the actual missile carried on towards its target, thats wot i call russian ingenuinety. the best in the world. iran has deployed the same technology into its medium range missiles as do north korea so it makes them virtualy indetructable.
123290
Cold War, term used to describe the post-World War II struggle between the United States and its allies and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its allies. During the Cold War period, which lasted from the mid-1940s until the end of the 1980s, international politics were heavily shaped by the intense rivalry between these two great blocs of power and the political ideologies they represented: democracy and capitalism in the case of the United States and its allies, and Communism in the case of the Soviet bloc. The principal allies of the United States during the Cold War included Britain, France, West Germany, Japan, and Canada. On the Soviet side were many of the countries of Eastern Europe—including Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and Romania—and, during parts of the Cold War, Cuba and China. Countries that had no formal commitment to either bloc were known as neutrals or, within the Third World, as nonaligned nations (see Nonaligned Movement). \n\nAmerican journalist Walter Lippmann first popularized the term cold war in a 1947 book by that name. By using the term, Lippmann meant to suggest that relations between the USSR and its World War II allies (primarily the United States, Britain, and France) had deteriorated to the point of war without the occurrence of actual warfare. Over the next few years, the emerging rivalry between these two camps hardened into a mutual and permanent preoccupation. It dominated the foreign policy agendas of both sides and led to the formation of two vast military alliances: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), created by the Western powers in 1949; and the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact, established in 1955. Although centered originally in Europe, the Cold War enmity eventually drew the United States and the USSR into local conflicts in almost every quarter of the globe. It also produced what became known as the Cold War arms race, an intense competition between the two superpowers to accumulate advanced military weapons.
261530
Very limited in comparison to the period during the Cold War.
1116836
In reference to another post there is no working star wars program in place, we are just as vulnerable to a missile attack today as we were fifty years ago, now the likelihood of a large scale nuclear attack is much much lower without the soviets runnin around, though it is always possible that by some computer error that a launch will take place from either us or the russian silos, afterwards if we don't convince each other that it was a mistake it would probably lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, now that covers the U.S. and Russia, but don't forget the other nuclear nations out there such as Pakistan and India which are pretty much where the U.S. and Soviets were twenty years ago, so on that side of the planet I would say within the next two years that there is a 20% possibility of a nuclear exchange barring any massive change in policy or major event such as some sort of military incident betweent those two countries. It is possible that there could be a nuclear device smuggled and detonated in the U.S. by some terrorist organisation but that would not lead to a nuclear war, unless the perpetrators of such an attack posessed a nuclear arsenal. Let me just say that with today's great technology a nuclear device does not have to be any bigger than a briefcase and with lax border control and nearly unlimited funding for terrorist organisations in addition to lack of intelligence on nuclear material around the world it is very possible that some terrorist organisation may suceed in detonating a device on American soil. Let's all hope that never happens
1152286
We effectively did. The Russians stayed within the boundaries that were established at the end of World War II. We could have tried to push the Russians back into their own territory, but Harry Truman didn't want another 200,000 dead Americans.\n\nAnd containment largely worked for the 40 years that the Cold War raged... We won Berlin, drew to a tie in Korea and Cuba, and lost Vietnam (but the Russians didn't win).\nAnd the arms race effectively destroyed the Soviet economy; at a terrible cost to the US, but we won the Cold War.
601693
Really just about every country on earth was involved in the Cold war. Either you were pro Soviet or pro West. Most countries were pro West unless they were part of the Soviet bloc or traded oil and weapons with the Soviets. Kind of like the war on terrorism. You are for us or against us.
25269
The Cold War was a very dangerous time, in which highly-organized military threats existed side-by-side with Soviet-aligned terrorists.  Any moral or national-identity clarity came from the basic need to (1) survive, and (2) prevail.  That clarity was of the same sort that Benjamin Franklin referred to when he said, "The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully."\n\nNostalgia can only come in retrospect, with the knowledge that we were going to win.  At the time, it was not necessarily a sure thing; and there always was the very real risk that a miscalculation or misperception could touch off a massive nuclear exchange.  The Cold War contained several real, full-scale wars, in which millions of people (not just our comparatively few soldiers) died.  The lives of generations were stunted as they served as pawns in proxy wars throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America.\n\nAcademically and politically, I am among the very last of the Cold Warriors, studying under government officials doubling as professors as the Communist bloc crumbled.  We were no flaming liberals--we were foreign policy pragmatists who came from all over the map of domestic politics.  All of us were absolutely thrilled to see the bastards go down.  None of us wanted a rematch.  We looked forward, joyfully, toward the chance to concentrate on all the other things at home and abroad that needed attention.  Too many of those stagnated for lack of resources and attention during the long, long Cold War.