But, strangely, life seemed to move on. There never were any sirens or a mad rush of millions to the safety of the countryside and many of the bomb-shelters closed. The flaunting of the West's economic freedoms on TV screens seemed to be the real "tip-of-the-spear" that caused Soviet citizens to demand change in their governing system. I guess the Cold War ended and terrorism seemed to be the only "continuation of politics" by foreign powers that the U.S. didn't have a "lid" for. So what's the moral of this story? I don't really know. Maybe it's that when a situation seems to have no "cup half full" perspective and you can't do anything alone or in a group to control it, then you ignore the situation? I guess so, that's what most healthy people seemed to do during the Reagan and Carter years. But, then, just the other day, I read that the U.S. is building a nuclear bunker buster weapon to destroy deeply buried enemy fortifications, likely in the Middle East. How do healthy people today view this situation? And, do you think Starz or anybody on Kazaa might have an old copy of The Day After sitting around, you know, a "cliff-notes," "best-of-the-bomb"-type version to help me take an abbreviated, digitized stroll down memory lane? :)
From the blog, Usedcarsalesman.com
Article comments
1 - Duane
The fact that the USA and the USSR did not blow each each other into the afterlife just goes to show that the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which critics lampooned mercilessly, worked as advertised. This is probably the reason that the USSR did not attempt a conventional overrun of Europe. Their conventional forces were, in number, far superior to NATO. The fear of nuclear retaliation was, arguably, the inhibitor. It worked. The problem with the MAD game is that it requires the players to be sane. Enter the rogue nations. That's when it gets scary.
2 - gonzo marx
watch Dr. Strangelove
one of the blackest Comedies ever filmed
Excelsior!