What were the main points in the cold war all of them.?
824912
read this, it will help you.
1167834
Both the Cold War and the War on Terror are open-ended wars with no clear enemy.  This allows the U.S. Government to use it to go against elements it deems dangerous...all it had to do back in the 50s was label those elements "communists"...now it labels them "terrorists"
667322
Boy, there's a debate.\n\nShort Answer: The United States, and it did it by spend the Soviet Union into oblivion. The USSR suffered the fate of most empires -- it overextended itself and ran of the resources necessary to sustain its empire.\nBut the US did it at a terrible cost. We are now stuck with a military-industrial complex that is bleeding us drive and could very soon threaten our own superiority.\n\nSo philosophical answer: The Cold War isn't over yet, and we could still lose.
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).
620125
When did the cold war start?  [Web Answer] \nCold War started on March 5, 1946 ended on November 9, 1989. It can be argued that the Cold War started in 1917 when aid was sent to the White Russians, or Yalta Conference or End of World War II in 1945\n\n\nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_War/Arch...
208079
Sputnik.  The Soviet Union.
580183
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt\nhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html\nWinston Churchill\nhttp://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1\nJoseph Stalin\nhttp://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_stalin.html\nMeet the "Big Three". These were the heads of the main allied countries who participated in the Yalta Conference in February of 1945. Yalta is a city on the coast of the Black Sea which was then part of the USSR and is now part of Ukraine. Their mission was to discuss post-war arrangements for Europe. Some of the agreements made at the conference included plans for dividing Germany into four zones of occupation (American, British, French, and Soviet), plans for war crimes trials, and plans for war reparations. Read some of the original documents pertaining to the conference."
461464
A Cold War would probably be more properly described as a long term conflict. A war would be defined as a situation where two states engage in direct military combat. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union and the United States engaged in a great political, ideological, economic and even military struggle against one another, but there was almost no instance of direct military conlfict between the two states. Thus, it was a "cold" war rather than a "hot" one, where direct military engagement occurred.\n\nHowever, having said that, it is undeniable that both sides were engaging each other but through the use of proxy states. Thus there was conflict in East and South East Asia must notably in Korea and Vietnam. They also came to the brink of war on more than one occasion, most famously in the Cuban Missile Crisis.\n\nIn sum, the distiction of it being a "Cold" War is an important one, though it actually fact it is more properly defined as an extended bipolar conflict.
925441
WWII Set the stage for the US and the USSR to be the leading world powers.
641254
Try this link and it talks about the war in containment terms. http://faculty.washington.edu/rhennes/KORSUCCESS.html
137426
Cold War: Postwar Estrangement\n1.The Western democracies and the Soviet Union discussed the progress of World War II and the nature of the postwar settlement at conferences in Tehran (1943), Yalta (February 1945), and Potsdam (July-August 1945). After the war, disputes between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, particularly over the Soviet takeover of East European states, led Winston Churchill to warn in 1946 that an "iron curtain" was descending through the middle of Europe. For his part, Joseph Stalin deepened the estrangement between the United States and the Soviet Union when he asserted in 1946 that World War II was an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of "capitalist imperialism" and implied that such a war might reoccur. \n\nThe Cold War was a period of East-West competition, tension, and conflict short of full-scale war, characterized by mutual perceptions of hostile intention between military-political alliances or blocs. There were real wars, sometimes called "proxy wars" because they were fought by Soviet allies rather than the USSR itself -- along with competition for influence in the Third World, and a major superpower arms race. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, East-West relations went through phases of alternating relaxation and confrontation, including a cooperative phase during the 1960s and another, termed dtente, during the 1970s. A final phase during the late 1980s and early 1990s was hailed by President Mikhail Gorbachev, and especially by the president of the new post-Communist Russian republic, Boris Yeltsin, as well as by President George Bush, as beginning a partnership between the two states that could address many global problems. \n\n\n\nCold War: Soviet Perspectives\n2.After World War II, Joseph Stalin saw the world as divided into two camps: imperialist and capitalist regimes on the one hand, and the Communist and progressive world on the other. In 1947, President Harry Truman also spoke of two diametrically opposed systems: one free, and the other bent on subjugating other nations. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev stated in 1956 that imperialism and capitalism could coexist without war because the Communist system had become stronger. The Geneva Summit of 1955 among Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, and the Camp David Summit of 1959 between Eisenhower and Khrushchev raised hopes of a more cooperative spirit between East and West. In 1963 the United States and the Soviet Union signed some confidence-building agreements, and in 1967 President Lyndon Johnson met with Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey. Interspersed with such moves toward cooperation, however, were hostile acts that threatened broader conflict, such as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 and the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968. \n\nThe long rule of Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982) is now referred to in Russia as the "period of stagnation." But the Soviet stance toward the United States became less overtly hostile in the early 1970s. Negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in summit meetings and the signing of strategic arms limitation agreements. Brezhnev proclaimed in 1973 that peaceful coexistence was the normal, permanent, and irreversible state of relations between imperialist and Communist countries, although he warned that conflict might continue in the Third World. In the late 1970s, growing internal repression and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to a renewal of Cold War hostility. \n\nSoviet views of the United States changed once again after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in early 1985. Arms control negotiations were renewed, and President Reagan undertook a new series of summit meetings with Gorbachev that led to arms reductions and facilitated a growing sympathy even among Communist leaders for more cooperation and the rejection of a class-based, conflic
329781
First World War \nSecond World War \nKorean War \nSoutheast Asian Conflicts \nPeacekeeping and Post–Cold War Operations
603349
SALT I, the first series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, extended from November 1969 to May 1972. In a summit meeting in Moscow, after two and a half years of negotiation, the first round of SALT was brought to a conclusion on May 26, 1972, when President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev signed the ABM Treaty and the Interim Agreement on strategic offensive arms. \n\nSALT II negotiations began in November 1972. A major breakthrough occurred at the Vladivostok meeting in November 1974, between President Ford and General Secretary Brezhnev. At this meeting, the sides agreed to a basic framework for the SALT II agreement. The completed SALT II agreement was signed by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. President Carter transmitted it to the Senate on June 22 for its advice and consent to ratification. On January 3, 1980, however, President Carter requested the Senate majority leader to delay consideration of the Treaty on the Senate floor in view of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In May 1982, President Reagan stated he would do nothing to undercut the SALT agreements as long as the Soviet Union showed equal restraint. The Soviet Union again agreed to abide by the unratified Treaty. Subsequently, in 1984 and 1985, President Reagan declared that the Soviet Union had violated its political commitment to observe the SALT II Treaty. On May 26, 1986, President Reagan stated that "... the United States must base decisions regarding its strategic force structure on the nature and magnitude of the threat posed by Soviet strategic forces and not on standards contained in the SALT structure...." \n\nThis lead to the START talks, which are far too involved to attempt to discuss here.  Here's a link that covers all of them:\n\nhttp://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start2/news/index.html
1152409
Technically we out-gunned the USSR, so the USA did win the "Cold War"\n\nConsidering that a percentage of nuclear war-heads were dismantled, disbursed, and now un-accounted for. Let's wait and see where that takes us.\n\nBoth sides 'win' when we both can reduce govn't expenditures on war products and readiness.  That nuclear and computer stuff can be pretty expensive. But hey, if we didn't have the "space race", we might not have Tang.
279089
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=What+are+two+contrasting+models+of+terrorism+in+the+cold+war+era%3F&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8\n\nhttp://www.ask.com/web?q=What+are+two+contrasting+models+of+terrorism+in+the+cold+war+era%3F&qsrc=0&o=0
257466
CRUSH CAPITALISM!!!!\nSeriously dude, how hard was that?  Think about Berlin, etc.  Also, a lot of the ethnic cleansing had been done in Russia by this point (enough Ukrainians killed off for Stalin).  Uncle Joe Stalin was in charge and FDR had given him rule over a lot of territory unnecessarily.  Comintern would be supported, and the Cold War against the US and the rest of the capitalist world be maintained, especially through vicarious conflicts, like the Korean War, where the Russian Communists supplied weapons and troops to a few idealogical Koreans to "give the gift" of Communism.  The Koreans requested help from the US and the Greeks, etc. (the Greeks had just recently defeated a Communist incursion).
1097048
The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties; its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause. \n\nIn early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals. \n\nBetween 1959 and 1962 the Western powers made a series of proposals to bar the use of outer space for military purposes. Their successive plans for general and complete disarmament included provisions to ban the orbiting and stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, 1960, President Eisenhower proposed that the principles of the Antarctic Treaty be applied to outer space and celestial bodies. \n\nSoviet plans for general and complete disarmament between 1960 and 1962 included provisions for ensuring the peaceful use of outer space. The Soviet Union, however, would not separate outer space from other disarmament issues, nor would it agree to restrict outer space to peaceful uses unless U.S. foreign bases at which short-range and medium-range missiles were stationed were eliminated also. \n\nThe Western powers declined to accept the Soviet approach; the linkage, they held, would upset the military balance and weaken the security of the West. \n\nAfter the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Soviet Unions position changed. It ceased to link an agreement on outer space with the question of foreign bases. On September 19, 1963, Foreign Minister Gromyko told the General Assembly that the Soviet Union wished to conclude an agreement banning the orbiting of objects carrying nuclear weapons. Ambassador Stevenson stated that the United States had no intention of orbiting weapons of mass destruction, installing them on celestial bodies or stationing them in outer space. The General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on October 17, 1963, welcoming the Soviet and U.S. statements and calling upon all states to refrain from introducing weapons of mass destruction into outer space. \n\nThe United States supported the resolution, despite the absence of any provisions for verification; the capabilities of its space-tracking systems, it was estimated, were adequate for detecting launchings and devices in orbit. \n\nSeeking to sustain the momentum for arms control agreements, the United States in 1965 and 1966 pressed for a Treaty that would give further substance to the U.N. resolution. \n\nOn June 16, 1966, both the United States and the Soviet Union submitted draft treaties. The U.S. draft dealt only with celestial bodies; the Soviet draft covered the whole outer space environment. The United States accepted the Soviet position on the scope of the Treaty, and by September agreement had been reached in discussions at Geneva on most Treaty provisions. Differences on the few remaining issues -- chiefly involving access to facilities on celestial bodies, reporting on space activities, and the use of military equipment and personnel in space exploration -- were satisfactorily resolved in private consultations during the General Assembly session by December. \n\nOn the 19th of that month the General Assembly approved by acclamation a resolution commending the Treaty. It was opened for signature at Washington, London, and Moscow on January 27, 1967. On April 25 the Senate gave unanimous consent to its ratification, and the Treaty entered into force