(How) Would the Cold War have been won under a Libertarian president?

[rambone]

In the spirit of debate, I wanted to bring this question up to the INGO crowd. I respect the opinions of many of our regular posters and wanted to know how you felt about this. I currently consider myself a mix of conservative and libertarian beliefs. This is one period that I am curious about the alternatives to.



Ronald Reagan's critics point out that he increased the debt, largely by funding the military in many ways and expanding defense operations.


How do you feel the Cold War would have been handled under a Libertarian U.S. president?

Would there have been a "Cold War" ?

Was the Soviet Union destined to collapse?

Would the USA have been vulnerable to the Soviet military giant?

Discuss.




Lets keep this thread on the Cold War, and off of his time as California Governor.

 

[jblomenberg16]

In my humble opinion:

The Cold War was one of mutually assured destruction. In other words, we escalated arms production at an alarming pace so that if one attacked the other, both would more or less be destroyed in a few minutes as a result of the retaliation strikes.

What neither bargained for was that the mutually assured destruction was bankrupcy. The Soviets got their first, and in turn we won the war. YES - many other factors came into play as well.

Unfortunately, we're on the same path as the Soviets. Now, to be clear, I don't think that defense spending is the entire reason for our federal budget deficit and our national debt, but it certainly is a contributor.


I think the result of a Libertarian President would have likely still be similar to the outcome we all know now as history. The Ruskies still would have collapsed, maybe not as soon. We might not have spent quite as much, but we'd still be in a whole as well.

I think the difference ultimately came down to USSR was Communists, and economically couldn't sustain itself like the United States could and hopefully still will. Our current path towards socialism isn't going to help our cause, though.

 

[LEaSH]

It wouldn't have mattered much as Pope John Paul hated commies as much as any American conservative (or more) and worked - and succeeded - to dissolve the iron curtain more than any American president could hope to achieve in two terms.

 

[Ogre]

It wouldn't have mattered much as Pope John Paul hated commies as much as any American conservative (or more) and worked - and succeeded - to dissolve the iron curtain more than any American president could hope to achieve in two terms.

I'm not familiar with that school of thought, could you elaborate?

 

[Expat]

I think we would have minded our own business and maintained a small military until one day we would have suddenly discovered that we were the only free country left in the world. Then it would have been too late.

 

[CombatVet]

I think we would have minded our own business and maintained a small military until one day we would have suddenly discovered that we were the only free country left in the world. Then it would have been too late.

I'll add to this since I think about the same. Most of our citizens would have been armed. Enter the movie "The Wolverines". I don't think we would have "won" per say, but we're a people unconquerable. It's in the American Nature to reach for liberty. So even if the Ruskies would have walked across the pond to take our stuff it would still have been on. Hell look at Afghanistan. They got so bogged down there. Could you imagine them trying to take the whole US? With all the different terrain types? Nah.

Now if you're wanting to go the Nuclear bombardment rout, then: Game over man, Game over!

 

[LEaSH]

I'm not familiar with that school of thought, could you elaborate?

Who knows what you'll glean from the 'net, but you probably wouldn't find anything definitive, anyway.
The fact is that We as a country didn't really win any cold war. The USSR did collapse under it's own bloated and crooked structure.
It was never like China is now. Everyone knows China, right? PRC is so tight that ancient religions were 'controlled' centuries ago.
The eastern block countries were a different bag altogether. The cultures in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland to name a few, were deep rooted in the Catholic church. Not just the Pope, but many cardinals kept stoking the peoples' desire for freedom. Some holy men ended up in prisons for a long, long time.
So it wasn't Reagan or Thatcher, so much. It certainly helps to have support. But who really took the Berlin wall down anyway?

 

[HandK]

We would have borrowed money from them!!!

 

[Expat]

Funny how we want to revise history at every turn these days.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8]YouTube - Reagan - Tear Down This Wall[/ame]

 

[LEaSH]

Hey, I'm a big fan of The Great Communicator, but he wasn't getting adversaries to comply by giving speeches.

If the Soviets had control of the hearts and minds of most of Eastern Europe, they'd still be there today. The people made the demand to remove the wall. It took about 40 years of tyranny, but it was the people. Perestroika was an internal fiasco - or maybe that was by design (like our healthcare situation may turn out to be).

Whatever our country did to subvert the tyranny or overtly support the people helped immensely. And haters of the Catholic church can simply ignore the positive efforts of the Vatican if it makes them feel better.

 

[Rizzo]

As far as the cold war, it was the build up of nuclear missiles for national defense and Space Defense Initiative technology that broke the bank of the USSR and bankrupted them into defeat not the unconstitutional military actions that failed in Korea and Vietnam. We never had to have one troop outside the US to win the cold war.

Only the complete will of the American people to sacrifice anything to absolutely destroy our enemies will win a war and only the true threat of this will prevent war.

Margaret Thatcher said Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot. Why?... because Reagan and the American people were committed and ready to absolutely destroy the USSR if they attacked us.

Today our fine military personnel have been forced to play policeman with rules of engagement that prevent victory. We are fighting unconstitutional conflicts with no goal, no strategy, no end and thus no victory. We are now firing many shots but not winning anything.

 

[Ogre]

As far as the cold war, it was the build up of nuclear missiles for national defense and Space Defense Initiative technology that broke the bank of the USSR and bankrupted them into defeat not the unconstitutional military actions that failed in Korea and Vietnam. We never had to have one troop outside the US to win the cold war.

Only the complete will of the American people to sacrifice anything to absolutely destroy our enemies will win a war and only the true threat of this will prevent war.

Margaret Thatcher said Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot. Why?... because Reagan and the American people were committed and ready to absolutely destroy the USSR if they attacked us.

Today our fine military personnel have been forced to play policeman with rules of engagement that prevent victory. We are fighting unconstitutional conflicts with no goal, no strategy, no end and thus no victory. We are now firing many shots but not winning anything.

 

[Coach]

Cold War

1. Every President from Truman through Bush 1 play a role, obviously some better than others.
2. Reagan deserves a lot of credit more than liberals want to admit but he did not do it all.
3. Communism had serious flaws that cannot be over looked.
4. The Cold War was more than just military build up and we did have to be on the ground in places not just sitting in the missile silos.
5. Lack of religious tolerance by communism was one of those flaws. Pius XII was as ardent anti-communist as John Paul II perhaps not as good a leader.
6. SDI was crucial in bringing down the USSR, they could not keep spending and it would make everything they had already obsolete.
7. Poltical party did not matter in the Cold War, and Libertarian should not have mattered either.

 

[edsinger]

I remember something like the US increased its defense spending from 2% of GDP to around 4% or so. In 8 years the Soviets went from 17% to 26%. While doing this the GDP increased from 4 Trillion to 8 Trillion in those 8 years, the Russians saw no growth even close to that..

Simply, they could not keep up and SDI broke their back. That is why Gorby wanted it gone so bad. The amount of money for them to counteract SDI would have totally wiped them out.

Here is an example of how that logic works. The B-2 for example costs ~ 1 Billion each and say 139 of them (Original amount) could be countered by, but at what cost? The US spending 140 Billion and the USSR spending upwards of 400 billion to replace their whole air defense network? They simply could not afford it, we could. Americans were not standing in lines for consumer goods and food. The Russians were starting just that.

Plus they didn't trust Reagan. They though he actually WOULD press the button and it scared the hell out of them, even worse than Nixon.


Yeah, many things contributed to it, including John Paul's work in Poland, but Eastern Europe was moot at that point, the USSR was collapsing from within....It was a spending game they couldn't win...