Actually this digression into the techniques of mass destruction displaced the original point of contention: the U.S. had some culpability in the initiation the Cold War politics. I have supported the point I'm making pretty well, IMO. One has to admit 'yes, at least some' if you look at all of the causal relationships from 1914 to 1989 involving the geopolitical aspects of NATO/Soviet positions. In most ways, we treated Japan and Germany, our vanquished enemies, better than our wartime ally, the Soviet Union. And that we ignored conditions in Germany before that.
I haven't even pointed out that Soviet ICBM technology followed the development by the U.S. of long-range, transcontinental bombers like the recallable B-52 and the transonic XB-70 (implying we had a mechanism to hold them hostage and recall the threat when they acquiesced). Or that we pioneered nuclear submarines making an appearance at the polar ice cap (implying that we could get to anywhere in Russia with short range missiles). Or, we created the first proven ocean-going missile platforms with the Polaris and Trident fleets. And anti-missile and anti-aircraft technology with the BoMark and Nike. Or survivable fire on demand MinuteMan. Or that we were routinely invading Soviet airspace with the SR-71 and, before that, U-2s . Or that IRBMs were placed in Turkey before the Cuban Missile Crisis. We lead the arms race because of our superior technology. We weren't always ahead in every area, but we were ahead overall always. With that in mind, it is inconceivable to suggest that we had no role in promulgating nuclear proliferation and perpetuating (and maybe even causing) the Cold War. Not total culpability, but at the very least partial responsibility. |
