Worse: Old Cold War Soviet Threat or Current Terrorism?

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Sorry, I don't know how to make a poll, or I would.

Anyway, for those of us who were taught how to get under our desks (as if that would have done any good) for the Soviet nuclear threat, how different do you feel about today's terror threats, if at all?

I started thinking about this yesterday as I was trying to explain terrorism to my 10 year old son.  I told him that we used to fear the Soviet Union, of which Russia is a remnant, and their ability to aim and launch powerful nuclear weapons at us.

But, the more I thought about it, the less appropriate that example seemed.  The Soviet threat was far away.  And, we'd have had some advanced notice of an incoming missile attack had the Soviets ever launched theirs.

But, take any of these recent mass shootings from homegrown terrorists:  there is no warning.  I guy returning to a holiday party.  I guy going into a nightclub.  In September 2001, some guys simply boarding an airplane.  At Fort Hood, a soldier just entering a building where fellow soldiers are queued up.

The more I contemplate, the more I think I'm coming to the conclusion that although the Soviet threat was probably certainly greater as far as the maximum amount of damage that could have been wrought, the immediate threat we face today from homegrown terrorists is higher.

Both threats were and are real, to be sure.  However, I do think we are now less safe on our own soil now than we were during the height of the Cold War. 

And, so, for those of us with kids, it isn't a matter of where to duck and cover, it's a matter that they will have to have constant vigilance everywhere, all the time. 

Hard to think about.  Different times, different threats.  I just think the threats are now more immediate, and certainly vastly more random. 

Also, if I may expand the subject a little, there is the question of how to respond.

Under the Soviet missile threat in Cold War days, you knew the outcome would be both sides launching missile attacks upon the other, and their allies.  Movie upon movie upon book upon book were written with that premise.

But, what of the homegrown terrorist?  Where do you respond?  There really is no immediate target of "revenge" so to speak.  Nowhere to seek payback to either stave off another attack or guarantee that another would not be coming soon.

And, so we have these circular discussions:  Tightening immigration versus gun control.

Personally, I think a bit of tightening on both counts might help.  Might.  But, I'm not naive enough to believe that guns can't be gotten illegally or that some immigrants, over time, can't become radicalized, no matter how many or few we admit.

(Also, as far as gun control goes, it may not make a difference because terrorists also often employ improvised explosives.)

It's real problem that I'm sorry my kids will have to live with.

Hard to believe that we used to think that the world could be no more dangerous than it was during Cold War times.  However, it seems as though it is now more dangerous.

Oh for the days when threat was simply country versus country saber rattling....with the occasional battles fought in other countries' boundaries - chiefly, Korea and Vietnam.

Edited June 14, 2016 by MeanGreenMailbox

[foutsrouts]

I think it's less dangerous now overall, since with the Russkies we were all either dead meat or roaming the countryside in some insane post-apocalyptic world. With the current situation, it's more about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I guess we do need to at least think twice before going into heavy crowd situations that are difficult to secure.

On the other hand the Russian threat is still there, and it could be only a matter of time before serious terrorists get weapons of mass destruction. Who the hell really knows. I haven't felt the need to build a bunker yet, but I at least have a pretty good piece of land far away from metro/military areas in case the need arises.