At the close of World War 2 and the years following it, one would think that the world would be 'war-ed out.' The two most powerful and influential nations at the end of the war were the US and USSR, they were the First World Countries.
Slowly, tension between the Democratic United States and the Communist USSR began to grow. The tension steamed from contrasting ideologies, geographical locations, and national history, yet the tension never escalated into a physical, "hot" war.
There could be very many reasons the two power nations never duked it out, including the fact that they both had new technology to literally blow each other into smithereens. As these two countries continued to differ on nearly every account, the small coal was beginning to burn as both America and the Soviet Union attempted to spread their political ideologies. Nearly every other nation in the world had to choose whether they would adopt Communist or Democratic ideologies themselves.
I find it hard to believe that with the power, technology, and support that the US and USSR never actually fought. But at the same time, the mass tension and drawn out conflict caused by the Cold War had nearly the same effects as if they had actually gone to war. Countries were divided, ideas were practically being forced down, one as trying to outdo or be better than the other, people were victimized- every one of these aspects would hold true to countries at war, so at what point can a cold war be better than a hot war? Sure there is less physical loss and damage, and I’m not saying hot war is necessarily better but that the pettiness and un-authoritative route of a cold war isn’t a better solution.
It’s like when two of your friends are fighting, and instead of talking about the situation, they sit in silence while you play middle man and try to see the real problem. Never fun for anybody.
No comments:
Post a Comment