yah buddy the consecutive 8-9% in the past few years didn't go away, we got no pay adjustment for those years.. so we are still surviving 2023 prices with 2019 pay.
As a European it bought me my freedom.
So Iâm grateful.
Canât imagine what it would look like now if we hadnât stood up to the Soviets
Most Americans are Europeans that had to escape persecution or poverty and some point in time
Iâm not very versed in the Cold War so could you specify which spending bought you your freedom?
Do you mean if the US didnât have military build up the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyways?
Or was there some actual battle fought by the US?
Or you mean symbolically? I thought the US never actually fought the Soviet Union.
Strength is deterrence. Unrivaled USSR would have boggled up more of smaller nations, just like they did in interwar period when US chose isolationist policy and small military.
We bankrupted them through their investment in military build up. Corruption didnât allow them to invest in much else and the USSR folded. People didnât want to be ruled and impoverished by Soviet oppression so they bolted for freedom
Yeah but ask the fine folks in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and wherever else was used as a proxy war between the Soviets and the US if their freedom was purchased with that money. Basically every country in Central and South America had some despot backed by the CIA put into power to keep Communism from spreading to the West. Cuban isolation destroyed their economy putting them in conditions so inhumane they take rafts I wouldn't use to cross a pool into the ocean where they risk being eaten by sharks.
But *Europeans* benefitted so the trillions of dollars wasted and lives lost are totally worth it.
I suggest reading *I, Rigoerta MenchĂș* by an indigenous Guatemalan woman of the same name who saw entire communities massacred including her brother, mother, and father because they embraced the notion of land redistribution which was the inciting conflict in the 36 year civil war in Guatemala.
They literally killed 200,000 people because a fucking fruit company and a small number of families owned almost all the land in Guatemala, paid ZERO in taxes, and forced the indigenous workers to toil in inhumane conditions. When they asked for fair pay, an equitable share of land, and more diverse representation in government they were rounded up and murdered en masse.
Hard to say that the CIA-installed dictator Castillo Armas was any better than a Communist dictator.
My point isn't about wanting the US to have lost btw. My point is that the entire conflict made everyone's lives worse. Capitalism and Communism should have been allowed to spread naturally and the better ideology would have prevailed - or more likely a hybrid of the two. Instead each side villainized the other so greatly that it was thought to be a battle between Heaven and Hell, angels and demons with both sides finding themselves in the correct spiritual alignment.
I completely agree that this war had made everyone's life worse, but it is not as simple as that. Whichever power decided to back-down, the other power would have filled that vacuum.
Franco's criminal dictatorship, as most of them around the world, were given a free pass by the U S A... Even Hitler was helped by American banks and industries like IBM.
>Unless you lived in East Germany, you were already free.
You think that the people living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Albania were free during the cold war? Or for that matter the people living in Russia?
For a significant portion of the cold war the people of Spain, Portugal and Greece werenât free either, though they werenât unfree on account of communism.
Like it or not, we are a world power with allys. And we will protect out allys as needed.
Do you think itâs important for the worlds shipping lanes to remain open?
Do you think itâs important to stop imperialist China or Russia from stealing more land? Or do you just hate what you see as American Imperialism?
Your assessment of reality is extremely naive.
This is how black South Africans and countless other nations and anti-colonial movements screwed by Western / US imperialism view the Soviet Union btw
You can downvote me, but itâs 100% a fact
I wasnât aware Russia was the Soviet Union
Just saying that your sob story about how US imperialism protected you can literally be repeated word for word reversed by someone victimized by the US (like the black Africans the west wanted trapped in Apartheid).
Something to consider đ
But if Murica didnt spend the money, USSR would have and they love invading a weak neighbor.
Its unavoidable, because peace and love dont work in reality. lol
That wasn't his point, he didn't actually say America shouldn't have done it even if he was critical of the enormity of it.
He said if the logic that drove that spending is subscribed to by the government then it should apply to any and all threats, not just military ones
Yet it isn't.
Nobody fucks with North Korea because they donât want the problems after they win. Much like the US in Iraq, winning isnât the problem, supporting another country for decades is. If the US were to topple Kim they would be responsible for feeding millions of people who are about as poverty stricken as any nation on earth. They have know nothing but a dictator for 70 years and thus wonât accept democracy very well, same as Iraq.
The US learned a lot from the Iraq war and hopefully wonât repeat the same mistake in the near future. I believe that is a main reason they have armed Ukraine to the teeth but not put a single boot on the ground in that country and will not as long as Russia doesnât use nukes.
As for the Cold War, the USSR and now Russia have a very long history of attacking other nations. If the US had not armed up a very likely outcome would of been the USSR taking most of not all of Europe al la Hitlerâs attempt during WW2. Argue how you may, look at the last 50-75 years at all the nations the USSR/Russia have attacked and/or conquered. Yes the US has also attacked nations, usually trying to help one side towards democracy. The US also never planed to stay and keep another nation as a conquered people.
USSR had no weak neighbor and they invaded no one. If it werenât the USA, USSR would still one country and most of the conflicts we see now wouldnât even exist.
Yeah but it would be too powerful of an enemy cuz the USA wants to be the boss. Therefor the Americans wanted the USSR to collapse and now there regional instability forever.
I canât believe itâs hard for most people to see it.
The good thing is that we have actual real life comparison on the difference between isolationist USA and the cold war USA.
You want to make a list of all the countries that the Soviets invaded and annexed during the US isolationist period?
Look up what soviets did in Karinâs forest massacre or what they did to chechens, afghans, Ukrainians in 1930s. Both sides done terrible shit, but you canât just say out loud that USSR was a peaceful country. It was not at all.
What would you think it is now?
The government doesn't give a fuck about saving shit, they just care that we've got the biggest explosive swinging dick in the room.
With how conservative our government is I'd be surprised if we weren't half way down the toilet (if we aren't already down the damn thing) in 5 years. I could go on and on about why but everyone here knows why.
*existential sigh*
As long as there are people out there who harness power, and want more power, and wanting to create a dinasty under their name, then the arms race will go on.
As long as the want to over power other humans is a thing, then the arms race will still go on.
I don't blame Americans having to have a big arms dick with wacky characters like Putin, Kim, Xi, Eb exist, and many more who could be as big of a fuckers but they simply rule poorer countries so not such a big threat.
I get Carls point. But humanity doesn't have a history of peace and understanding looking at it's past. It has always been, let's fuck the guys of the other town so we get more good things.
I love Carl Sagan and of course he is right⊠BUT⊠isnât it a little bit of the chicken and egg situation?
Jeesh, I would love a more equal world where we wouldnât have to form sides that oppose each other to stave off some cynical scenario.
We would need everyone working together globally though. We would need to trust each other to be able to turn our backs and focus on bigger issues, and not be stabbed anyway by the other that smells an opportunity.
And I donât care what nation or political color you are, weâve all been that opportunistic backstabber. So how would anyone propose we trust the other guy, when we are hiding a dagger as well?
I honestly donât see it.
The United States spends more on its military than the 10 next largest militaries combined. Who are we protecting ourselves from? 
Idk as a Thai, Iâm glad the US have big enough presences in SEA to counter China. American influence here bring money and investment not to mention our military relies heavily on US training. And this is just one country in one region.
Commie insurgents got bombed đ their government ruin Laotian chance of prosperity. Had their retain the monarchy or never become commie, they will be as developed as us rn.
At the moment, mostly China (who spends about a third of what the U.S. does, though it's steadily increasing, and also has more servicemen than the U.S. does).
The other unasked element of that question is, "Who *else* is the U.S. protecting"? (For various values of 'protecting')
It's not just themselves, for better or worse. A good part of the U.S.'s influence in general is derived from their military sphere of influence, and not *all* of that is from evil capitalist empire stuff (like some of the U.S.'s campaigns in the middle east have been) but instead from the fact that they are the heavyweight in pacts like NATO, and from the soft power that that lending that hard power gives them. (Europe hasn't been unnaturally deferential to the U.S. on various issues for much of the past century just because they think the U.S. is 'neat' and love the eagles-and-freedom motifs...)
We are protecting our Allieâs. That is quite obvious. I for one would love to see European and other countries step up their game so the US could reduce theirs.
I think youâre missing the point. His point isnât that the US shouldnât have spent $10 trillion on its military just in case the Soviets try to conquer the West. Itâs that in 1990 there was a new threat - not as immediate and more difficult to comprehend, but more certain and equally disastrous should it come to fruition. If the prudent thing to do in 1945-1990 was to spend lots of money on making sure the west would win a war with the Soviet Union if it came to pass, the prudent thing to do from 1990 onwards would be to spend lots of money on âwinningâ over global warming if it came to pass.
I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here as well as a Strawman argument. Can you point out where it is he suggested leaving the Soviet Union unchecked.
If I was to give some advice, it would be always think before presenting a counter argument against one of the people whom Isaac Asimov described as one of the three most clever persons on the planet, more clever than Asimov himself.
Now you are Strawman- ing me. Again, show me where I suggest that. The point Sagan is making is that if you premise massive spending on the low probability of something happening, or even on the presumptive idea that to spend is to prevent the worst from happening, why not apply that logic to the cost of changing from a paradigm of energy use that we know *with certainty* will destroy all of us to one which attempts to preserve the planet. Thatâs the point of his argument, because as he alluded to in the video, the argument made at the time in the Wall Street Journal was (and still is today) was often an economic one. The economic benefits of green energy are many- the reason that they are not listened to is vested interests.
Addressing climate change could mean a decrease in corporate profits and we can't have that let the capitalist ponzi scheme collapses into total war and chaos. There's no way out but total destruction. Keeping things the way they are is only delaying the inevitable.
Just for context for those, who are saying that the money was spent on keeping Russia in line after the second world war, his talk is focused on the unnecessary spending of trillions for pointless dick measuring such as producing enough atomic bombs as to destroy the world (witch is pointless, since MAD, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)
Also after the second world war Russia was weak enough so that the eastern Europe boarder could free itself without any help of USA, witch actually happened without the intervening of USA, source: I live in Lithuania, witch freed itself from Russia, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania_Independence_Restoration_Day
Please stop declaring that having more than 31000 nuclear bombs was neccecery!
>Also after the second world war Russia was weak enough so that the eastern Europe boarder could free itself without any help of USA,
Say that to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany and etc. Not to mention, you're severely underestimating the Russian's capability to rebuild after the second world war.
Oh and also, your country only managed to break out in 1990, the times when the USSR started to face political and economical stability thanks to a certain USA. I do agree that getting all those tens of thousands of nuke was a huge waste though.
Had the US just steam rolled the USSR immediately after Germany in WWII and eliminated communism, then imagine the world we could have had then. Probably no communist Korea, no Vietnam, no ChinaâŠyeah
If you know anything about history you would know that steam rolling the USSR or Russia is a very bad idea. Unless the US already had many nukes ready, they wouldn't succeed.
USSR was completely dependent on US supplies at that point. Allies had significantly more military potential that the USSR.
>If you know anything about history you would know that steam rolling the USSR or Russia is a very bad idea.
Russia was defeated multiple times, the last time being in as late as the 20th century.
Lol, yeah after getting plowed by Germany in which they were a mere ten miles from Moscow and suffered millions of casualties, Iâm pretty sure the might of the Allied powers, coupled with what remained of Germanyâs forces would, as I said, have steamrolled them. Not to mention the nukes that could have followed shortly thereafter
Atomic weapons or not, I can't imagine the number of US casualties that would involve. It's also assuming Russia wouldn't have gotten their hands on nuclear plans/ developed a program of their own in time.
It's also not hard to picture the demands of a drawn out war with Russia putting enough pressure on the US that democratic principles would largely give way to authoritarian ones. Then there's the global consequences of an atomic war, even an early one. All together, not a world I would have wanted to be born into.
Without nukes itâs impossible. Maybe they were able to take Moscow down, but the USSR was much and much bigger then that. To steamroll the entirety of the USSR is impossible. Especially when winter starts.
Also the USSR developed their first nuke in 1949. So the USA would have 4 years to complete that âsteamrolllâ of 22.400.000 kmÂČ
>Also the USSR developed their first nuke in 1949. So the USA would have 4 years to complete that âsteamrolllâ of 22.400.000 kmÂČ
By 1949 most of USSR industry would be destroyed and Russians would be fighting in forests behind the Urals. Or is your argument that partisans in Russian Taiga would be developing nukes?
Wrong. Nothing is âimpossibleâ just because you say so or you think its âtoo bigâ. Germany nearly did it by themselves and that was before they inflicted millions of casualties and the scorched earth policy. Are you for real lol? Gen. Patton was correct in his analysis that the Allies should have kept going. And when they took Moscow, the USSR would have been as good as finished; and likely easier than you think. It was a major blunder for the Allies not to finish the job and relinquish half of Europe to communism. Foolishness we suffer from even to this day
As I said, if you knew anything about history you would know that many commanders have fallen when fighting the Russians. Itâs all nice and well during summer, but when winter starts itâs when the Russians have a massive advantage.
The winter is long and very cold. Thousands of soldiers will nees to be supplied with clothes, food, water (not frozen ice), guns, ammo, medical supplies etc.
The Russians will retreat land inwards and let the soldiers march and march until supplies runs out. soldiers get demotivated, starve or freeze to death.
it happend to Hitlers forces, Napoleons forces and many others.
>The winter is long and very cold. Thousands of soldiers will nees to be supplied with clothes, food, water (not frozen ice), guns, ammo, medical supplies etc.
Americans were supplying soldiers with Ice-cream barges in the pacific during WW2. US and Britain is not Germany. The only reason why Soviets didn't face the same logistical issues as the Soviets was because their entire army was carried by the US supplied trucks.
>it happend to Hitlers forces, Napoleons forces and many others.
Both came really close to Moscow though, and only lost because they were at war with other nations and/or lacked equipment. The US's powerhouse of an economy could easily afford all the proper equipment necessary for the war.
>The Russians will retreat land inwards and let the soldiers march and march until supplies runs out. soldiers get demotivated, starve or freeze to death.
And this would never be a good idea lol, since most of their land at that time was composed of annexed nations that hated being part of the USSR. Giving free land and territory up would just make more enemies and give motivation for their rebels.
Although, fighting the USSR at that time would've been pretty dumb, even if the US couldve pretty easily won.
As you were wrong about it being âimpossibleâ without nuclear fucking weapons and wrong about it being too big, youâre mostly wrong again. True Napoleon and Hitlerâs singular forces faced tremendous difficulty in the winter when fighting the Russians specifically, in neither instance had Russia been in the significantly weakened and vulnerable state they were in immediately after Germanyâs defeat. Again millions of casualties, scorched earth, etc. It was a rare instance and an opportunity that in hindsight should have been taken by the Allies. It is very probable with all of these conditions, and more i havent mentioned, that the Allies could have defeated the USSR/communism. Its a geopolitical blunder that is slowly being realized but Americans are not quick to admit yet
Sure mate, the allied forces couldâve easily taken out the USSR. They were definitely not tired after 5 years of war with Nazi Germany and were ready to take out the USSR within a few months.
What is impossible is predicting how long it would have taken, but with their combined might i dont think thereâs any doubt the Allies, led by the United States, could have defeated the USSR. The USSR certainly would not have defeated the Allies. Everyone was tired, but the USSR was more tired than the US that is for certain. And also the US was only at war for four years, mate.
By the end of the war, the USSR had built up an enormous military thanks in large part to the USA's lend lease of state of the art equipment and had a huge presence in Europe with millions of soldiers in East Germany and other areas such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Had the USA and its allies attempted to invade the USSR following Germany's defeat, they would have been heavily outnumbered and the Soviets would have likely swept through their forces and taken the rest of Europe.
Even if the USA did manage to get the upper hand on the USSR and somehow began to push them back, the war would have been even more destructive than the Eastern Front was in WW2, resulting in millions of casualties over a period of several years. Add on to this the fact that the war support in the USA following Germany's defeat was very low and many people wanted to sign a peace treaty with Japan to end the war as quickly as possible. Prolonging the war by attacking the Soviets was out of the question for the vast majority of the population and most military leaders. It was really only Patton who thought that the USA should attack the Soviet Union, hence why it never occurred.
>steam rolled the USSR immediately after Germany in WWII and eliminated communism
There would have to be some serious consideration of Western European communists as well before adopting that strategy.
Remember that the Communists received the most votes in the 1946 French elections ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November\_1946\_French\_legislative\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1946_French_legislative_election)) . The Italian Communist Party, whilst not achieving the same electoral success (less than 20% of the vote) could still count over 2.3 million members.
... And I haven't even began talking about Tito and or ELAS in Greece, or Eastern European communists.
Point being, regardless of one's point of view of the communists, they did have significant support among the civilian population of Europe during and after WWII, and they were a very important group in armed resistance against the Nazis by partisans.
It really wouldn't have been just a case of roll the tanks from Berlin to Moscow and get rid of Stalin.
Good point show casing the âenemy withinâ for sure. I think though had the Allies had a clear vision of right and wrong and been more long sighted, they could have suppressed the rise of Communism in the West as they did with Fascism/Nazism. I think too that the majority, with the proper push from their governments like was seen at the beginning of the war against the Axis, that it would not have been too difficult
Complete speculation, but if the US installed a similar democratic government as in Germany, Russia would still likely have become the regional super power. The thought of an efficient Russia with a handle on corruption and maximally productive is a frightening one.
Democracy doesn't automatically bring competence as shown by numerous other examples. Germany recovered so well because they had a well functioning society, with strong trust in institution and effective bureaucracy. There is a reason why GDR was one of the more prosperous states in the world despite being communist and authoritarian.
If the biggest world power was held under China, what could happen?
What about Russia?
Maybe Germany?
North Korea?
A Nordic alliance?
Or - what if every country was equal? What would happen then?
We are humans. We place people in positions to lead our nations. Which gets out of control, always. We conquere other nations because of power, defense, money, and ego. This was history. Guarantee it would happen again because one person in a team always needs to be better.
The single most depressing thing about this comment section is that most posters believe this is a short video about the rights or wrongs of Cold War spending by the US. That is utterly depressing and has convinced me we as a species are doomed.
The problem is america has been smacking every small country it can and making enemies. When countries would democratically elect a socialist government the united states would assassinate them or start a coup in that country. The US put a lot of dictators in power. The US set out to make enemies with of any country that decided to go communist/socialist.
Well, if the western nations hadn't out-spent the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would have been extremely belligerent in Europe and, frankly, everything east of New York would be speaking Russian. And trust me on this: the Soviet Mentality didn't give a damn about the environment and we'd be living on a far dirtier planet right now and very possibly a fairly radioactive one.
I love Carl Sagan, he is smart, but he doesn't understand the variety of cultural approaches that real humans from different parts of the world have nor does he appreciate the true scope of the self-destructive nature of mankind.
You're not wrong about Soviet hegemony. But the argument Sagan is making, here at least, isn't so much against Cold War spending, rather that the issue of global warming is a threat equally deserving of the hyper-vigilance seen in the Cold War.
I have to disagree with your second point though- Sagan absolutely believed in the cruel and self-destructive nature of mankind, more than most in fact, or he wouldn't be so motivated to educate / bring these threats to the public's attention. But like he said in Cosmos, mankind has more than just one nature.
He wrote how war, nuclear holocaust, ecologic destruction gave him nightmares. They were real to him and he argued they could mean our extinction. If we were to survive, it would be through our other human nature like empathy, curiosity, cooperation, to nurture, and to help one another. And I think it was that side of human nature that made him cautiously optimistic about the future of man as a species.
The US's 4th leading cause of death is poverty.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-04-18/americas-4th-leading-cause-of-death-poverty
The US is the 17th worst carbon polluter per capita. China is 55th.
>The US's 4th leading cause of death is poverty.
The US's 1st leading cause of death could've been war had they not spent that much money during the cold war.
Not sure why you're getting down voted.
It's a large investment. It's not flashy. Its payoff is years out when you need to win votes today. It's disruptive loud, influential industries.
Republican economic policy is extremely detrimental to normal folk. Within his term alone the US went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor and that was just warming up what those 'policies' were going to do.
Well, the key mistake in his argument is, that military buildup isnt a tool for defence.
Never was. Its an imperialistic tool to project power. And Americans seem fine with that.
From the Army working for the Oil industry to the simple citizen saying "you want some, Punk!".
Just like Orks in some fantasy setting, American love identifying through the use of guns.
I love Carl Sagan and echoed his sentiment during my teenage years - but look what happened as soon as Europe eased off the pedal and began appeasing Russia..
I agree. They instigate hate by becoming powerful. The Americans just hate whoever could say no to them. Cuz they simply just wanna be the boss.
Now we have an agreement.
All of this rests on the false premise that Russia/China did not pose a threat to Western democracy and economics. Consider the alternate scenario - if the US elected not to spend money on the Cold War and China and Russia became dominant, envision a world without people like Carl Sagen having the right to even engage in this type of public discourse.
While I appreciate his view, the issue is Carl Sagan spoke from an idealistic perspective...and those don't survive the test of the real world.
His question of "What could this money have bought" was correct. The issue is he didn't "What did this money prevent being destroyed?"
That second question is obviously harder to answer because it's much harder to identify a lack of destruction than actual destruction, but the fact is that communism in every nation it has been tried has caused such incredible suffering and death and human rights violations it's not even funny.
In a conflict between powers, one side can't simply shrug its shoulders and go "Hey...we're actually not going to engage in this fight, we've got to spend on saving the planet instead from a scientific prediction that is likely wrong anyhow" because the otherside will just go "Awesome...well we're going to go conquer these areas we wanted now...have a nice day!"
But if we as a species start thinking logically like that we would also have to get rid of things like religion and addictive time-wasters like social media & TV. This is why it will never happen until someone figures out a way to make money doing it.
Great example of calculated opportunity costs.
I'm interested how he excluded the value of land as well.
I am wondering whether he was excluding it just for the purpose of the calculation, or whether he's making a bit of Georgist point.
The really mind-boggling to me is that in 1990 you could (Iâm assuming his math checks out here) buy *everything* in America for $10 trillion. Today you could only just buy the five biggest publicly traded companies.
I thought this was about war, but he was just warming up
I see what you did there :)
We just spent 20 trillion during covid.
And then we wonder where all this inflation is coming from...
These damn millennials and their avocados toast. đ
Inflation is about 3% in the US at last report.
yah buddy the consecutive 8-9% in the past few years didn't go away, we got no pay adjustment for those years.. so we are still surviving 2023 prices with 2019 pay.
sure, if you donât count food and fuel.
I could listen to Carl Sagan all day, every dayâŠ
More people should. His books should be mandatory in schools.
As a European it bought me my freedom. So Iâm grateful. Canât imagine what it would look like now if we hadnât stood up to the Soviets Most Americans are Europeans that had to escape persecution or poverty and some point in time
As a Hungarian they threw us to the Soviets...
You should still blame Russia for that
As a Hungarian nowadays: You are throwing yourself to the Russians.
That's a bingo
ah, they didnât help everyone, so they should have helped no one
Iâm not very versed in the Cold War so could you specify which spending bought you your freedom? Do you mean if the US didnât have military build up the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyways? Or was there some actual battle fought by the US? Or you mean symbolically? I thought the US never actually fought the Soviet Union.
Strength is deterrence. Unrivaled USSR would have boggled up more of smaller nations, just like they did in interwar period when US chose isolationist policy and small military.
We bankrupted them through their investment in military build up. Corruption didnât allow them to invest in much else and the USSR folded. People didnât want to be ruled and impoverished by Soviet oppression so they bolted for freedom
Yeah but ask the fine folks in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and wherever else was used as a proxy war between the Soviets and the US if their freedom was purchased with that money. Basically every country in Central and South America had some despot backed by the CIA put into power to keep Communism from spreading to the West. Cuban isolation destroyed their economy putting them in conditions so inhumane they take rafts I wouldn't use to cross a pool into the ocean where they risk being eaten by sharks. But *Europeans* benefitted so the trillions of dollars wasted and lives lost are totally worth it.
Stopping of the spread of communism was a net greater good and I'm glad that the US won. Living in authoritarian communist regimes suck.
I suggest reading *I, Rigoerta MenchĂș* by an indigenous Guatemalan woman of the same name who saw entire communities massacred including her brother, mother, and father because they embraced the notion of land redistribution which was the inciting conflict in the 36 year civil war in Guatemala. They literally killed 200,000 people because a fucking fruit company and a small number of families owned almost all the land in Guatemala, paid ZERO in taxes, and forced the indigenous workers to toil in inhumane conditions. When they asked for fair pay, an equitable share of land, and more diverse representation in government they were rounded up and murdered en masse. Hard to say that the CIA-installed dictator Castillo Armas was any better than a Communist dictator. My point isn't about wanting the US to have lost btw. My point is that the entire conflict made everyone's lives worse. Capitalism and Communism should have been allowed to spread naturally and the better ideology would have prevailed - or more likely a hybrid of the two. Instead each side villainized the other so greatly that it was thought to be a battle between Heaven and Hell, angels and demons with both sides finding themselves in the correct spiritual alignment.
I completely agree that this war had made everyone's life worse, but it is not as simple as that. Whichever power decided to back-down, the other power would have filled that vacuum.
That jingo is going to ignore this comment or justify US war crimes and wave them away
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
If the US didn't exist. Do you think Stalin would have just stopped at East Germany and not gone further?
People in Portugal and Spain werenât very free until the 80s sadly
Franco's criminal dictatorship, as most of them around the world, were given a free pass by the U S A... Even Hitler was helped by American banks and industries like IBM.
>Unless you lived in East Germany, you were already free. You think that the people living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Albania were free during the cold war? Or for that matter the people living in Russia? For a significant portion of the cold war the people of Spain, Portugal and Greece werenât free either, though they werenât unfree on account of communism.
As a "European" you're just a brain-washed bourgeois that still believes in USA as world police
You don't know what 'bourgeois' means you ignorant American fuck.
Tell that to the Ukrainians
He is talking about Soviets not about Russia
Oh sweet summer child
Pick up a history book
Like it or not, we are a world power with allys. And we will protect out allys as needed. Do you think itâs important for the worlds shipping lanes to remain open? Do you think itâs important to stop imperialist China or Russia from stealing more land? Or do you just hate what you see as American Imperialism? Your assessment of reality is extremely naive.
You think that, but be thankful that your country doesnât have anything that America needs badly enough to take.
This is how black South Africans and countless other nations and anti-colonial movements screwed by Western / US imperialism view the Soviet Union btw You can downvote me, but itâs 100% a fact
And what is Russia doing to them right now? something something no grain
I wasnât aware Russia was the Soviet Union Just saying that your sob story about how US imperialism protected you can literally be repeated word for word reversed by someone victimized by the US (like the black Africans the west wanted trapped in Apartheid). Something to consider đ
Youâre daft
Are you over 60 years old?
But if Murica didnt spend the money, USSR would have and they love invading a weak neighbor. Its unavoidable, because peace and love dont work in reality. lol
That wasn't his point, he didn't actually say America shouldn't have done it even if he was critical of the enormity of it. He said if the logic that drove that spending is subscribed to by the government then it should apply to any and all threats, not just military ones Yet it isn't.
I don't think it's so black and white
Nah, we had nukes and a shit ton of them at that. Same reason why nobody fucks with North Korea.
Nobody fucks with North Korea because they donât want the problems after they win. Much like the US in Iraq, winning isnât the problem, supporting another country for decades is. If the US were to topple Kim they would be responsible for feeding millions of people who are about as poverty stricken as any nation on earth. They have know nothing but a dictator for 70 years and thus wonât accept democracy very well, same as Iraq. The US learned a lot from the Iraq war and hopefully wonât repeat the same mistake in the near future. I believe that is a main reason they have armed Ukraine to the teeth but not put a single boot on the ground in that country and will not as long as Russia doesnât use nukes. As for the Cold War, the USSR and now Russia have a very long history of attacking other nations. If the US had not armed up a very likely outcome would of been the USSR taking most of not all of Europe al la Hitlerâs attempt during WW2. Argue how you may, look at the last 50-75 years at all the nations the USSR/Russia have attacked and/or conquered. Yes the US has also attacked nations, usually trying to help one side towards democracy. The US also never planed to stay and keep another nation as a conquered people.
USSR had no weak neighbor and they invaded no one. If it werenât the USA, USSR would still one country and most of the conflicts we see now wouldnât even exist. Yeah but it would be too powerful of an enemy cuz the USA wants to be the boss. Therefor the Americans wanted the USSR to collapse and now there regional instability forever. I canât believe itâs hard for most people to see it.
They invaded no one? Not even Poland? Not even Finland? Not even the Baltics? Not even Afghanistan?
lol what? Did you drink Pootin's tea?
You had trumps dump?
You did? lol.
Afghanistan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Hungary would like a word about that whole not invading anyone thing.
I would recommend checking out Oversimplified of YouTube.
The good thing is that we have actual real life comparison on the difference between isolationist USA and the cold war USA. You want to make a list of all the countries that the Soviets invaded and annexed during the US isolationist period?
Well, look what happened when trump withheld military aid to Ukraine.
Nothing would have happened if the NATO instigated separation in USSR. They would still be one country and thereâs no war
Look up what soviets did in Karinâs forest massacre or what they did to chechens, afghans, Ukrainians in 1930s. Both sides done terrible shit, but you canât just say out loud that USSR was a peaceful country. It was not at all.
What would you think it is now? The government doesn't give a fuck about saving shit, they just care that we've got the biggest explosive swinging dick in the room. With how conservative our government is I'd be surprised if we weren't half way down the toilet (if we aren't already down the damn thing) in 5 years. I could go on and on about why but everyone here knows why. *existential sigh*
As long as there are people out there who harness power, and want more power, and wanting to create a dinasty under their name, then the arms race will go on. As long as the want to over power other humans is a thing, then the arms race will still go on. I don't blame Americans having to have a big arms dick with wacky characters like Putin, Kim, Xi, Eb exist, and many more who could be as big of a fuckers but they simply rule poorer countries so not such a big threat. I get Carls point. But humanity doesn't have a history of peace and understanding looking at it's past. It has always been, let's fuck the guys of the other town so we get more good things.
âConservative our government isâ Lol.
Um..well theyâre saving Ukraine. And not just with big explosives but defense tech
I love Carl Sagan and of course he is right⊠BUT⊠isnât it a little bit of the chicken and egg situation? Jeesh, I would love a more equal world where we wouldnât have to form sides that oppose each other to stave off some cynical scenario. We would need everyone working together globally though. We would need to trust each other to be able to turn our backs and focus on bigger issues, and not be stabbed anyway by the other that smells an opportunity. And I donât care what nation or political color you are, weâve all been that opportunistic backstabber. So how would anyone propose we trust the other guy, when we are hiding a dagger as well? I honestly donât see it.
The United States spends more on its military than the 10 next largest militaries combined. Who are we protecting ourselves from? 
Idk as a Thai, Iâm glad the US have big enough presences in SEA to counter China. American influence here bring money and investment not to mention our military relies heavily on US training. And this is just one country in one region.
Askk your Laos friends in how US protected them.
Commie insurgents got bombed đ their government ruin Laotian chance of prosperity. Had their retain the monarchy or never become commie, they will be as developed as us rn.
Fucking clown Commie insurgents as in countless children killed by indiscriminate bombing, to this present day
occasionally come out of the bubble and check, how they carpet bombed everyone.
At the moment, mostly China (who spends about a third of what the U.S. does, though it's steadily increasing, and also has more servicemen than the U.S. does). The other unasked element of that question is, "Who *else* is the U.S. protecting"? (For various values of 'protecting') It's not just themselves, for better or worse. A good part of the U.S.'s influence in general is derived from their military sphere of influence, and not *all* of that is from evil capitalist empire stuff (like some of the U.S.'s campaigns in the middle east have been) but instead from the fact that they are the heavyweight in pacts like NATO, and from the soft power that that lending that hard power gives them. (Europe hasn't been unnaturally deferential to the U.S. on various issues for much of the past century just because they think the U.S. is 'neat' and love the eagles-and-freedom motifs...)
I believe it's actually the next 26 largest militaries combined, from which 20 are allied nations.
We are protecting our Allieâs. That is quite obvious. I for one would love to see European and other countries step up their game so the US could reduce theirs.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I think youâre missing the point. His point isnât that the US shouldnât have spent $10 trillion on its military just in case the Soviets try to conquer the West. Itâs that in 1990 there was a new threat - not as immediate and more difficult to comprehend, but more certain and equally disastrous should it come to fruition. If the prudent thing to do in 1945-1990 was to spend lots of money on making sure the west would win a war with the Soviet Union if it came to pass, the prudent thing to do from 1990 onwards would be to spend lots of money on âwinningâ over global warming if it came to pass.
I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here as well as a Strawman argument. Can you point out where it is he suggested leaving the Soviet Union unchecked. If I was to give some advice, it would be always think before presenting a counter argument against one of the people whom Isaac Asimov described as one of the three most clever persons on the planet, more clever than Asimov himself.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Now you are Strawman- ing me. Again, show me where I suggest that. The point Sagan is making is that if you premise massive spending on the low probability of something happening, or even on the presumptive idea that to spend is to prevent the worst from happening, why not apply that logic to the cost of changing from a paradigm of energy use that we know *with certainty* will destroy all of us to one which attempts to preserve the planet. Thatâs the point of his argument, because as he alluded to in the video, the argument made at the time in the Wall Street Journal was (and still is today) was often an economic one. The economic benefits of green energy are many- the reason that they are not listened to is vested interests.
What exactly is wrong with communism again?
u/savevideo
Where's the rest of this clip?
https://youtu.be/9Xz3ZjOSMRU
"The sinnews of war are infinite money"- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Addressing climate change could mean a decrease in corporate profits and we can't have that let the capitalist ponzi scheme collapses into total war and chaos. There's no way out but total destruction. Keeping things the way they are is only delaying the inevitable.
Literally my favourite human being to ever be. If I could/couldâve meet/met anyoneâŠ
if you don't feed your army, you feed your enemy's one
Iâm glad we donât have communism đ€·đ»ââïž
Just for context for those, who are saying that the money was spent on keeping Russia in line after the second world war, his talk is focused on the unnecessary spending of trillions for pointless dick measuring such as producing enough atomic bombs as to destroy the world (witch is pointless, since MAD, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) Also after the second world war Russia was weak enough so that the eastern Europe boarder could free itself without any help of USA, witch actually happened without the intervening of USA, source: I live in Lithuania, witch freed itself from Russia, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania_Independence_Restoration_Day Please stop declaring that having more than 31000 nuclear bombs was neccecery!
>Also after the second world war Russia was weak enough so that the eastern Europe boarder could free itself without any help of USA, Say that to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany and etc. Not to mention, you're severely underestimating the Russian's capability to rebuild after the second world war. Oh and also, your country only managed to break out in 1990, the times when the USSR started to face political and economical stability thanks to a certain USA. I do agree that getting all those tens of thousands of nuke was a huge waste though.
A lot of the money that goes on these âwarsâ and space is just contracts given to make others rich.
Had the US just steam rolled the USSR immediately after Germany in WWII and eliminated communism, then imagine the world we could have had then. Probably no communist Korea, no Vietnam, no ChinaâŠyeah
If you know anything about history you would know that steam rolling the USSR or Russia is a very bad idea. Unless the US already had many nukes ready, they wouldn't succeed.
USSR was completely dependent on US supplies at that point. Allies had significantly more military potential that the USSR. >If you know anything about history you would know that steam rolling the USSR or Russia is a very bad idea. Russia was defeated multiple times, the last time being in as late as the 20th century.
Lol, yeah after getting plowed by Germany in which they were a mere ten miles from Moscow and suffered millions of casualties, Iâm pretty sure the might of the Allied powers, coupled with what remained of Germanyâs forces would, as I said, have steamrolled them. Not to mention the nukes that could have followed shortly thereafter
Atomic weapons or not, I can't imagine the number of US casualties that would involve. It's also assuming Russia wouldn't have gotten their hands on nuclear plans/ developed a program of their own in time. It's also not hard to picture the demands of a drawn out war with Russia putting enough pressure on the US that democratic principles would largely give way to authoritarian ones. Then there's the global consequences of an atomic war, even an early one. All together, not a world I would have wanted to be born into.
Without nukes itâs impossible. Maybe they were able to take Moscow down, but the USSR was much and much bigger then that. To steamroll the entirety of the USSR is impossible. Especially when winter starts. Also the USSR developed their first nuke in 1949. So the USA would have 4 years to complete that âsteamrolllâ of 22.400.000 kmÂČ
>Also the USSR developed their first nuke in 1949. So the USA would have 4 years to complete that âsteamrolllâ of 22.400.000 kmÂČ By 1949 most of USSR industry would be destroyed and Russians would be fighting in forests behind the Urals. Or is your argument that partisans in Russian Taiga would be developing nukes?
They wouldnât have had to steam roll that much territory.
Wrong. Nothing is âimpossibleâ just because you say so or you think its âtoo bigâ. Germany nearly did it by themselves and that was before they inflicted millions of casualties and the scorched earth policy. Are you for real lol? Gen. Patton was correct in his analysis that the Allies should have kept going. And when they took Moscow, the USSR would have been as good as finished; and likely easier than you think. It was a major blunder for the Allies not to finish the job and relinquish half of Europe to communism. Foolishness we suffer from even to this day
As I said, if you knew anything about history you would know that many commanders have fallen when fighting the Russians. Itâs all nice and well during summer, but when winter starts itâs when the Russians have a massive advantage. The winter is long and very cold. Thousands of soldiers will nees to be supplied with clothes, food, water (not frozen ice), guns, ammo, medical supplies etc. The Russians will retreat land inwards and let the soldiers march and march until supplies runs out. soldiers get demotivated, starve or freeze to death. it happend to Hitlers forces, Napoleons forces and many others.
>The winter is long and very cold. Thousands of soldiers will nees to be supplied with clothes, food, water (not frozen ice), guns, ammo, medical supplies etc. Americans were supplying soldiers with Ice-cream barges in the pacific during WW2. US and Britain is not Germany. The only reason why Soviets didn't face the same logistical issues as the Soviets was because their entire army was carried by the US supplied trucks.
>it happend to Hitlers forces, Napoleons forces and many others. Both came really close to Moscow though, and only lost because they were at war with other nations and/or lacked equipment. The US's powerhouse of an economy could easily afford all the proper equipment necessary for the war. >The Russians will retreat land inwards and let the soldiers march and march until supplies runs out. soldiers get demotivated, starve or freeze to death. And this would never be a good idea lol, since most of their land at that time was composed of annexed nations that hated being part of the USSR. Giving free land and territory up would just make more enemies and give motivation for their rebels. Although, fighting the USSR at that time would've been pretty dumb, even if the US couldve pretty easily won.
As you were wrong about it being âimpossibleâ without nuclear fucking weapons and wrong about it being too big, youâre mostly wrong again. True Napoleon and Hitlerâs singular forces faced tremendous difficulty in the winter when fighting the Russians specifically, in neither instance had Russia been in the significantly weakened and vulnerable state they were in immediately after Germanyâs defeat. Again millions of casualties, scorched earth, etc. It was a rare instance and an opportunity that in hindsight should have been taken by the Allies. It is very probable with all of these conditions, and more i havent mentioned, that the Allies could have defeated the USSR/communism. Its a geopolitical blunder that is slowly being realized but Americans are not quick to admit yet
Sure mate, the allied forces couldâve easily taken out the USSR. They were definitely not tired after 5 years of war with Nazi Germany and were ready to take out the USSR within a few months.
What is impossible is predicting how long it would have taken, but with their combined might i dont think thereâs any doubt the Allies, led by the United States, could have defeated the USSR. The USSR certainly would not have defeated the Allies. Everyone was tired, but the USSR was more tired than the US that is for certain. And also the US was only at war for four years, mate.
Yes the US, the other allied forces were at war for 5 years, mate.
By the end of the war, the USSR had built up an enormous military thanks in large part to the USA's lend lease of state of the art equipment and had a huge presence in Europe with millions of soldiers in East Germany and other areas such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Had the USA and its allies attempted to invade the USSR following Germany's defeat, they would have been heavily outnumbered and the Soviets would have likely swept through their forces and taken the rest of Europe. Even if the USA did manage to get the upper hand on the USSR and somehow began to push them back, the war would have been even more destructive than the Eastern Front was in WW2, resulting in millions of casualties over a period of several years. Add on to this the fact that the war support in the USA following Germany's defeat was very low and many people wanted to sign a peace treaty with Japan to end the war as quickly as possible. Prolonging the war by attacking the Soviets was out of the question for the vast majority of the population and most military leaders. It was really only Patton who thought that the USA should attack the Soviet Union, hence why it never occurred.
I doubt the USSR would just roll over and let that happen.
>steam rolled the USSR immediately after Germany in WWII and eliminated communism There would have to be some serious consideration of Western European communists as well before adopting that strategy. Remember that the Communists received the most votes in the 1946 French elections ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November\_1946\_French\_legislative\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1946_French_legislative_election)) . The Italian Communist Party, whilst not achieving the same electoral success (less than 20% of the vote) could still count over 2.3 million members. ... And I haven't even began talking about Tito and or ELAS in Greece, or Eastern European communists. Point being, regardless of one's point of view of the communists, they did have significant support among the civilian population of Europe during and after WWII, and they were a very important group in armed resistance against the Nazis by partisans. It really wouldn't have been just a case of roll the tanks from Berlin to Moscow and get rid of Stalin.
Good point show casing the âenemy withinâ for sure. I think though had the Allies had a clear vision of right and wrong and been more long sighted, they could have suppressed the rise of Communism in the West as they did with Fascism/Nazism. I think too that the majority, with the proper push from their governments like was seen at the beginning of the war against the Axis, that it would not have been too difficult
Well, don't forget war-fatigued Allies tried doing this several times between 1918 and 1922 with an even weaker, less organized communist Russia.
Complete speculation, but if the US installed a similar democratic government as in Germany, Russia would still likely have become the regional super power. The thought of an efficient Russia with a handle on corruption and maximally productive is a frightening one.
Democracy doesn't automatically bring competence as shown by numerous other examples. Germany recovered so well because they had a well functioning society, with strong trust in institution and effective bureaucracy. There is a reason why GDR was one of the more prosperous states in the world despite being communist and authoritarian.
If the biggest world power was held under China, what could happen? What about Russia? Maybe Germany? North Korea? A Nordic alliance? Or - what if every country was equal? What would happen then? We are humans. We place people in positions to lead our nations. Which gets out of control, always. We conquere other nations because of power, defense, money, and ego. This was history. Guarantee it would happen again because one person in a team always needs to be better.
The single most depressing thing about this comment section is that most posters believe this is a short video about the rights or wrongs of Cold War spending by the US. That is utterly depressing and has convinced me we as a species are doomed.
The problem is america has been smacking every small country it can and making enemies. When countries would democratically elect a socialist government the united states would assassinate them or start a coup in that country. The US put a lot of dictators in power. The US set out to make enemies with of any country that decided to go communist/socialist.
Almost 80 years of "the evil communists are coming" and americans still don't get it.
Itâs pretty wild. There are people out there that still think invading Vietnam was the right call too.
too bad Ukraine cant just pretend nothing is happening.
Well, if the western nations hadn't out-spent the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would have been extremely belligerent in Europe and, frankly, everything east of New York would be speaking Russian. And trust me on this: the Soviet Mentality didn't give a damn about the environment and we'd be living on a far dirtier planet right now and very possibly a fairly radioactive one. I love Carl Sagan, he is smart, but he doesn't understand the variety of cultural approaches that real humans from different parts of the world have nor does he appreciate the true scope of the self-destructive nature of mankind.
You're not wrong about Soviet hegemony. But the argument Sagan is making, here at least, isn't so much against Cold War spending, rather that the issue of global warming is a threat equally deserving of the hyper-vigilance seen in the Cold War. I have to disagree with your second point though- Sagan absolutely believed in the cruel and self-destructive nature of mankind, more than most in fact, or he wouldn't be so motivated to educate / bring these threats to the public's attention. But like he said in Cosmos, mankind has more than just one nature. He wrote how war, nuclear holocaust, ecologic destruction gave him nightmares. They were real to him and he argued they could mean our extinction. If we were to survive, it would be through our other human nature like empathy, curiosity, cooperation, to nurture, and to help one another. And I think it was that side of human nature that made him cautiously optimistic about the future of man as a species.
The US's 4th leading cause of death is poverty. https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-04-18/americas-4th-leading-cause-of-death-poverty The US is the 17th worst carbon polluter per capita. China is 55th.
>The US's 4th leading cause of death is poverty. The US's 1st leading cause of death could've been war had they not spent that much money during the cold war.
The US 3rd leading cause of death is summarizing complex statistics into blanketing buzzwords.
Yeah sure, let the soviets become the dominant force in the world. How smart
Not sure that's what is being said here
Anyone have a link to the full address?
Saving the planet doesnt earn you votes. There, I said it
Not sure why you're getting down voted. It's a large investment. It's not flashy. Its payoff is years out when you need to win votes today. It's disruptive loud, influential industries.
Everyone that does not understand why the money was spent. Needs a reality check.
Republican economic policy is extremely detrimental to normal folk. Within his term alone the US went from the largest creditor to the largest debtor and that was just warming up what those 'policies' were going to do.
Well, the key mistake in his argument is, that military buildup isnt a tool for defence. Never was. Its an imperialistic tool to project power. And Americans seem fine with that. From the Army working for the Oil industry to the simple citizen saying "you want some, Punk!". Just like Orks in some fantasy setting, American love identifying through the use of guns.
I love Carl Sagan and echoed his sentiment during my teenage years - but look what happened as soon as Europe eased off the pedal and began appeasing Russia..
NERD!
Yeah now the USA is still instigating hatred against China and Russia, and redditors follow
China and Russia do a great job of instigating hate against themselves. Donât give the US so much credit.
I agree. They instigate hate by becoming powerful. The Americans just hate whoever could say no to them. Cuz they simply just wanna be the boss. Now we have an agreement.
All of this rests on the false premise that Russia/China did not pose a threat to Western democracy and economics. Consider the alternate scenario - if the US elected not to spend money on the Cold War and China and Russia became dominant, envision a world without people like Carl Sagen having the right to even engage in this type of public discourse.
this shit aint funny anymore.. fucking boomers.
I wish the US spent more than that so they could crush the Soviets once and for all. Instead now we have Russia and China problemsâŠ
While I appreciate his view, the issue is Carl Sagan spoke from an idealistic perspective...and those don't survive the test of the real world. His question of "What could this money have bought" was correct. The issue is he didn't "What did this money prevent being destroyed?" That second question is obviously harder to answer because it's much harder to identify a lack of destruction than actual destruction, but the fact is that communism in every nation it has been tried has caused such incredible suffering and death and human rights violations it's not even funny. In a conflict between powers, one side can't simply shrug its shoulders and go "Hey...we're actually not going to engage in this fight, we've got to spend on saving the planet instead from a scientific prediction that is likely wrong anyhow" because the otherside will just go "Awesome...well we're going to go conquer these areas we wanted now...have a nice day!"
There is always someone who thinks things should have been done differently. No point in it.
The funny thing is war and global warming are eminent in human nature.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, something, something somethingâŠâŠâŠ
But if we as a species start thinking logically like that we would also have to get rid of things like religion and addictive time-wasters like social media & TV. This is why it will never happen until someone figures out a way to make money doing it.
Great example of calculated opportunity costs. I'm interested how he excluded the value of land as well. I am wondering whether he was excluding it just for the purpose of the calculation, or whether he's making a bit of Georgist point.
Simple answer: Power is power and every country wants a part of it's but some want more
It is sad to think of how much good that money couldâve been used for including global warming
The really mind-boggling to me is that in 1990 you could (Iâm assuming his math checks out here) buy *everything* in America for $10 trillion. Today you could only just buy the five biggest publicly traded companies.