The fall of the Soviet Union is generally viewed as a victory for the US. But on balance, are we better off for it? Just to pick two major events that I believe would not have occurred if the Soviet Union were still in power: 9/11 and the Iraq War. The threat of nuclear war between the US and the USSR aside, is the world actually a more stable place with the US as lone superpower? What do you see as the main positive offsets that we gained from the end of the Cold War?
The Sept. 11 attacks are actually pretty trivial compared to any possible World War III scenario (I’m not sold on the idea that such can be casually put “aside”), so I’d say it was easily worth it. That doesn’t mean it was inevitable, of course, there are numerous points at which the nascent Al-Qaeda could have been neutralized or destroyed, but that’s with the benefit of hindsight.
As for Iraq, that’s more a function of having a president who could be sold on the idea of a short, victorious war.
I don’t think we can assume events like 9/11 or the Iraq War wouldn’t have happened. There were terrorist attacks and regional wars during the Cold War. It wasn’t that these problems didn’t exist; it’s just that they were overshadowed by the much larger problem of the Cold War.
So events like the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War may seem like major defining events in our history not because they actually had such an impact but because they stood out more in an era that was generally peaceful.
On reflection, isn’t the Iraq War commonly compared to Vietnam which did take place when the USSR was at or near its peak? Whether the USSR exists or not, if the U.S. wants to get quagmired, it’s gonna damn well get quagmired.
A tremendous drop in defense spending.
If we solely look at the US, probably it hurt us a little bit, since we didn’t have a competitor that we could focus on staying ahead of. But I doubt that’s a significant advantage since, really, a lot of the things we’d be focusing on - getting the first man on Mars, or whatever - probably isn’t as efficient a use of resources as many other things which are more practical, but less “front page news”. And, of course, China is pretty quickly coming up to fill that gap.
But for places like South America and the Middle East, it’s almost certainly been a positive. We called it the Cold War, because there was no fighting. But really, there was a lot of fighting. Coups were arranged, governments toppled, Korea was divided, Vietnam was bombed, we trained the militaries of tyrants throughout South America. While the end of the fight between the US and the USSR might not have created political stability in South America or the Middle East, it at least reduces the number of players in the game keeping things unstable.
When a country like Argentina goes into debt or when some other country would suffer famine, they could always call up one of the two big powers, and get support, in return for allegiance. Now, they have to actually correct themselves or risk outing. Granted, the people get hurt. But theoretically, down the road, it’s better to suffer early and fix the issue, than artificially circumvent the issue, just to get hit harder later, when your population is larger.
I don’t think there’s much of a debate. Yes, we’re better off with the Soviet Union gone. It made the world more complex and increased the little dangers, but now those dangers are more manageable. Imagine 9/11 with a strong Soviet Union still around. Do they let us into Afghanistan? Hell no. 3000 Americans dead and our only options would probably have been to just accept it and hope increased domestic security could keep us safe, plead with the Soviets to deal with the problem(yeah, send Soviet soldiers to die to defend America? Right.), or risk a war by sending American forces to Afghanistan anyway and daring the Soviets to do something about it.
The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Just so you know.
Again, a little nuance is in order, Frank. Afghanistan borders the Soviet Union. Would the Soviet Union allow a US invasion of Afghanistan? I think not.
Why not? The Soviet Union had already withdrawn some 13 years earlier.
You think their withdrawal gives the U.S. carte blanche?
I think it gives some indication of disinterest. I don’t see any reason why the U.S.S.R., had it still existed in 2001, would have cared much about an American invasion of Afghanistan. (Given the same circumstances: a haven for Bin Laden, al Quada).
shrug could be wrong.
Yeah an American invasion and the attempt to install a friendly government would not have been met with disinterest, istm.
Well, either one of us could be wrong, but I doubt that the Soviet Union, 13 years on, would have given much of a shit what happened to the Taliban. They had their chance.
If anything, the Soviets might have helped the Americans in Afghanistan, if it gave them the opportunity to set up a puppet government afterward, the U.S. presumably being uninterested in doing so.
Remember, we’re playing counterfactual here. Surely, the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was in large part because the USSR was starting to crumble. If we’re positing a world where it didn’t crumble, who’s to say they might not still be in Afghanistan?
No way in hell the Soviets go along willingly with a US presence that close.
Now, if it were during one of our less frosty periods, I can see them working with us to neutralize the threat, maybe allow airstrikes, but no US boots on the ground.
From their perspective it’s just too easy for us to build up forces too close. Think about how much of the friction was about getting one’s missiles as close as possible to minimize warning in the event of an attack.
That’s my opinion, anyway.
Immediately after an event of the magnitude of 9/11, I think the Soviet Union would have realized that Americans were going to want vengeance and were going to demand it from their government, and resisting US efforts to get that vengeance in Afghanistan could escalate very quickly. So rather than getting in the way of that bulldozer, I suspect they would have allowed the operation, and resisted the creation of a (US) friendly government later, when the heat was down a little bit.
That said, I generally agree with the consensus: the collapse of the Soviet Union was good for the US - and the world as a whole - if for no other reason than the reduction of the chance of a significant, nuclear altercation.