Did you feel safer when the Soviets were bad guys and you knew whose finger was on the triiger?

Answer 1

Yep!

Answer 2

I think the scariest concept that keeps me from a good nights sleep is the fact that the guy with his finger on the trigger in the supposed free world needs an assistant to tell him what way round he should wear his trousers. Who do you want to have control of the Nuclear Deterrent, Can I have the guy over there who can't find his way out of a room with one door.

Answer 3

In a sense, yes.

It's sort of the difference between a bear and cancer. The Soviet "bear" was just one entity. We had a large enough gun so that we could point it at them and keep them at bay. While they also had large guns, and mutually assured destruction was not exactly a comforting thought, it did lead to a stalemate that kept us out of major wars.

The Islamic militant/Al Qaeda (call it what you will) cancer can't be dealt with in the same way. It is not one entity. You can't point a nuclear weapon at it, and expect it to react in the same way. It's a new type of combatant, and will require a new strategy.

Answer 4

Yes I did. At least in those days, we knew who the enemy was, and had the ability to back them down with our strengths. Both sides realized that if one attacked, everyone was doomed, and it mattered.

When dealing with terrorists, you're not dealing with one entity, but with groups that are scattered throughout the world, enough so, that they've infiltrated our own country.

The unknown is always scarier. I would rather know.

Answer 5

Yes it did because the Soviets knew that if they launched a nuclear attack against the West, we would retaliate and nuke them right back. The Islamic terrorist will kill everyone including their own family members. They are more dangerous

Answer 6

Yes, at least you knew where they were. The danger is now within.

Answer 7

No, the story is still the same, just the actors have changed.