Is The Cold War and the War Against Terror similar?

Answer 1

The cold war was about the build up of nuclear arms and the worry about one country using it on another. During the period of the cold war, both the U.S and Russia were taking sides from behind the scene in small conflicts around the world. I would say that the past involvement with smaller countries in the cold war have links to conflicts involved in the war on terrorism today.

Answer 2

I would say no. The war against terror (as much as I hate it) is about the act of physical warfare against terrorists in the Middle East and abroad. While the Cold War seemed to me to be more like a psychological war between capitalism and communism. It was a race between two different societies. Look at the space race and the other technological advances we were using to "beat" the communists. It was a game of "I have something you don't have" as opposed to a physical assault.

Answer 3

No, not at all. The Cold War grew out of nuclear statemate between the US and the Soviet Union after World War 2. The so-called "war on terror" is merely a George Bush slogan and political ploy to win support for his aggressive excesses overseas.

Answer 4

First of all I think this Terrorist business is gotten way out of

proportion. Why? because we are being terrorized by it, but

not by others, by ourselves? Just go trough the question in

this category and U will see what we R doing to R selves?

Repeating the same boring and senseless questions again

and again.

U B the judge, since 9/11/01 have U been in any way

harmed by a terrorist from over seas? No, but U R being

terrorized by UR own media every day! same old s**t.

So don't fall for this old and very obvious trap. Be smart.

Think!

Answer 5

The similarity is as follows. Pre WWII America had what's known as a peace time economy. Meaning we didn't spend most of our money on defence/war/army/navy. After all we are protected by oceans on the east and west and non threats mexico nad canada to the south and north. So the prospect of America being in danger from a foreign army was a little silly. So after we fight the good fight in WWII we never disarm. We continue to build weapons at an extrodinary rate. Yet the public won't stand for this. We have guns why do we need more guns? we won. the war's over. But we never disarmed.
So to justify this continuation of war we needed to convince the public that they were in danger. But with out russian armies at our doorsteps what could scare the public.

So then the russians posed an "existential threat" to the american people. They wanted to destroy every part of American life (which is worth fighting for) So we built more guns.

But then the soviets folded on us. Now who would we fight. Ah yes terrorists. A small number of goatherders with weapons we supplied them are now the threat to every american (or at least every american that our government ships over there).

So i guess the answer is that the war on terror is the newer "existential threat" being sold to the American public to convince them that it's ok to spend billions and billions on warfare when domestic needs go unresolved (see New Orleans) before that it was the Cold war from 1950 to the early nineties

Answer 6

Not really. We knew who the enemy was and where they were during the cold war. The war on terror is more similar to the Vietnam conflict, who is the enemy and where are they?

Answer 7

Nope.

In the cold war, the USA and the USSR never fought.

In the War on Terror, the USA actually have fought the enemy.

Answer 8

Sure, they're similar in some ways, but certainly more different than similar.

The Cold War pitted us against a sovereign nation (or nations) with a clear agenda and with logical reasoning by which negotiations could take place. The enemy the western world now faces is much more insidious and much less apt to negotiate.

Answer 9

i dont think so the cold war was really a standoff and the war on terror is a war that has a lot of guerrilla warfare

Answer 10

no, the cold war was mainly spy/counter spy with very little actual violent conflict.

the war on terror is against an opponent who uses fear/terror as a weapon. they mainly strike non-military targets to create a maximum of loss/carnage (terror) with very little loss to themselves. one suicide bomber who kills/injures more than two people is a good trade in a terrorists eyes.