top of page

Cold War

Stephen Hornby-Smith

Was Britain preparing for utter nuclear destruction in Europe as the preferred theatre of war choice of USA and much of the Soviet Union? Was USA willing to stage a failed deterrant in Europe to scare a USSR from any more thoughts of an escalation of war between the two major superpowers of the Cold War, then it worked. European catastrophy was included in such calculations to test mutual superpower stand off, leaving Europeans aghast. But how was the USA and the USSR meant to survive in such global consequences of nuclear European devastation? How would the USA feed its 300 million people? What would be the reality with a breakdown in law and order? What would happen to US borders? How many millions be needed to enforce law and order? How would the US deal with mass migration on biblical levels? How quickly does disease spread when over-stretched medical services run out of medicine? Looting will ensue,vigilante's take law into their own hands, and war Lords build a 'Mad Max' scenario etc, or New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but for 50 years that's where USA isn't even bombed.

Why weren't we in Europe informed about what would happen to an 'unscathed' USA? There was an atmosphere of betrayal and an a pervading sense of being too reliant on the USA who would then sacrifice Europe to protect itself. The USA even had the finger on the button in Europe rather than Europeans having the sovereign final say as to when or if nuclear war would take place. So why did leaders in Europe acquiesce to US decision making?

The answer is that the USSR needed to know that it couldn't win in Europe and that the Yanks were capable of looking after number one only. European paranoia further fueled angry European fears that was a deliberate calculation to sacrifice Europe by the US military. The USSR believed it ! Deterrant worked! The more the NATO leaders were publically seen as sleepwalking into catastrophy the more USSR felt deterrant was credible. But this was no accident. The USA had been working on fine-tuning anti Americanism for decades in Western and Eastern Europe. Americans feel publically dismayed at hate towards the USA and feel misunderstood, The US military and the political establishment will and have used Anti-americanism as a policy that generates greater influence around the world. Squadrons of drones flying over Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Pakistanetc are both deliberate provocations and technically so advanced that the Talliban can't fight against an unseen enemy. At least Hillary Clinton has found a way to deploy weaponry without any American blood being spilt on foreign soil, but I know of Americans who would denounce such an 'unfair 'advantage , not technologically but because it is in their life blood to criticize American Foreign policy. In fact the anti-Americanism begins at home not just abroad, and it is this that adds to the piquancy, and effectiveness in the hands of its government. But friendly fire as a policy is as old as the hills, as European historians would be the first to admit. Or not? You decide.

bottom of page