In the post-1945 conflict between the Soviet Union and the US, the anticipation of a nuclear attack was ever present. Just ask Bert the Turtle.
Your question is this: Which policy to combat communism, and stop a nuclear attack, is your preferred method? Is it containment or deterrence? Give three reasons for your choice.
As always, leave your name in the comment and you need EIGHT SENTENCES for full credit.
I would prefer containment. The Soviets were in another one sphere of the world, and we were in another. Western Europe depended on our aid and support to recover and thrive after the war, as well as Greece and Turkey. The constant flow of money supported the democratic governments already in place, slowing the expansion of communism. This prevented the Soviet's expanding their circle of influence and kept our allies around. I think this would be a better way to stem the spread of communism. Although, keeping up our supply of weapons was also important.
ReplyDeletePatrick H
Deterents is far better than containment due to it stopping conflict all together. Detterents is the system where both sides build up armements so that if a war begins neither side will survive. Nuclear weapons were the detterants in the Cold War due to both sides building enough to destroy the world in an instant. Although this is dangerous and could prove fatal for the Human race it means all or nothing. Containment could not work in the long term without a major war(s) that could destroy large parts of the would. Containment would just lead to smaller fights that would lead to a major war that could have the same end result as Detterants gone bad. The end of the human race as we know it.
ReplyDeleteTo stop the spread of communism I prefer the method of containing it. If the ideas and leaders that support communism cannot enter foreign countries then the political system will not continue to grow. America would convince countries to become a democracy and the communists would see how well their neighboring countries were flourishing!!!
ReplyDeleteIn order to stop the spread of communism, The method of containment makes more sense to me. I beileve that it would take way to long to completetly stop it. That would take up to much resources and to many wastes efforts. If we were to just keep it in one or two countries then it wont spread anywhere else. We could persuade other countries to create laws banning communism. Also, it is none of our countries business to tell every other country how to run themselves. If we force other countries to stop it than they may want to rebell.
ReplyDelete-BEN
I think that both containment and deterrence are both very effective methods to control communism. I have to say that the policy that I think works better is containment. I like containment because it is a more effective way to control the communism in countries. The Marshall Plan basically bribed European countries to not turn communist. The U.S. gave these countries money, and helped get their economies going. This is entirely more effective than deterrence, where the countries basically have one big standoff, and hope that the most powerful coutry wins. I think that deterrrence accomplishes nothing, and creates resentment between countries. All in all, the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine helped European economies, protected citizens of the U.S. from communism, and created friendly bonds between the United States and the countries they bribed away from communism.
ReplyDelete-Savannah Jelks 8A
Dear Mr. Stribling,
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Patrick, and prefer containment. The Truman Doctrine was formalized on March 12, 1947. The Truman Doctrine supplied aid to Greece and Turkey, so the Middle East would be protected by communsism. The Truman Doctrine, also, set in motion a worldwide fight against Soviet Communism. The Marshall Plan would also give billions of dollars to European nations so that Europe could recover from World War II. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949, goal was i keep the Soviets out of Eastern Europe. NATO was made "to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilxation of their peoples founded on the principles of demorcracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law."
Although Detereence seems like a good idea, it also seems more like a game between the countries, on how big their "muslces" are (meaning how many atomic weapons they have). Why just sit around waiting to see who the most atomic weapons, or who is going to drop their atomic bomb, and actually prevent communism from spreading.
~Skye :-)
Containment, is the act of blocking the spread of a religion or social policy. The containment used by the US during the Cold War was to protect democratic states from becoming communist regimes. This method was less aggressive than rollback, and it worked well in the fight against nuclear war and communism. The US became very worried about pro communist Europe and Asia. The confining of communism to the USSR and smaller countries, already in their sphere of influence, was a good strategy. The containment of communism was very effective. The spending of billions of dollars on the protection and appeasement of Turkey and Greece, as well as other capitalist countries, was less aggressive but aided democratic governments already in place. Deterrence was not necessary. Three bombs, for the top three major metropolitan areas of the USSR would be plenty of power and destruction to deter, and scare, the Soviets into not using their own bombs. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) was definitely a strong enough barrier from nuclear warfare. Containment stopped the spread, which was much more necessary than building bombs.
ReplyDelete- Morgan W
I would say deterrence is better then containment because if we had 1,000 nukes and the Russians had 900 nukes they would not want to nuke us because we would nuke them way worse. Plus no country wants to nuke a country with more nukes then them because they would be attacked way worse. Plus it would be hard for the Russians to nuke Washington DC,Boston,New York, and all the major cities on the east coast. JAMES WOOD
ReplyDeleteI would prefer using the method of containment. Through the usage of containment, I would not only be able to combat communism, but also stop a nuclear attack. By using deterrance, one may be able to prevent nuclear attacks, however, the spread of communism would not be entirely prevented. The spread of communism would not be stopped due to the fact that this is almost always spread verbally. One must also take into consideration that the usage of containment has shown to be effective numerous times in the past. As Patrick said,the constant flow of money to Western Europe provided by America, slowed the spread of communism. Also, containment is a much less agressive and a much more civil policy compared to deterrance. Even though this is war and rules and laws are disregarded as well as peace among citiznes, wouldn't it be better if a war could be put to an end a bit more peaceful? Both deterrance and containment are cruel policies, and will most likely take lives away, but containment is deifnitely a much more civil method.
ReplyDelete-Francesca
Unlike Patrick, I would prefer deterrence. Leaving a communist country contained can only result in more warfare. Eventually, the communists will rise up and try to conquer more land if they are left contained. Communist countries are like a tea kettle, if they are left contained, they will overflow into other countries. Also, when fighting against communism with deterrence, the spread of communism is being stopped. Containment is similar to appeasement. It is allowing evil to reign, just like Hitler did, as long as “it won’t spread.” If propaganda is being used to degrade Communism, most people will listen and decide they do not want a communist government. Containment cannot work; furthermore, it will result in more war. Germany had been contained in poverty before Nazi rule. The containment and isolation has and will lead to more dictators. Another reason that deterrence has to be used instead of containment is because deterrence can stop the Communist “disease” from spreading. Leaving it alone will make it do more harm. Deterrence is the medication to rid the disease of Communism from Europe.
ReplyDelete- James Manship 8B
P.S. Bert the Turtle be my best friend >> check it:
,+'/.\'+, ___
\/\_/\_/\_/\,+' * \
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/_/'-------'\_\
I prefer the method of containment. Containment would be way more effective than deterrence. Containment could stop the spread of communism and a nuclear attack. By using containment all of the communism would be contained into one country, and would not be spread. Deterrence is basically a way of scaring your enemy, and although this is effective in stopping a nuclear explosion I think that containment is a better way. Containment also prevents communism more, deterrence does partially stop communism, but not to the extent that containment does. Containment is also a less violent way of stopping the communism. I think that deterrence is important though. They are both very effective and I think that both would work, but that containment is a better way to do it.
ReplyDelete-Caitlin
My name is Will. There, I said it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with James on deterrence, specifically as to the teapot analogy. Keeping any sort of government contained would likely cause rebellion. It's like popcorn: the longer it's in the microwave, the bigger it gets. The longer Communists are contained, the angrier they could get. Deterrence would not only interfere, it would stop the Communists in their tracks. If he owned more missiles than them, they wouldn't attack us because we could attack back more. The only pro to containment is that Communism would have less of a chance of spreading. It is like a disease: we shouldn't quarantine it until it dies, we should vaccinate others so that they are not infected.
The way America handled the situation with their doctrines and plans worked fine for a while, but deterrence would be the most efficient method.
Seeing as my class didn't do so well today, I know barely anything about the information above. But I figured I'd have a go at the question. I feel that containment would be the best option because you would be able to 'contain' the spread of communism. Also, you can prevent a potential nuclear war. Containment seems to be more affective, where as deterrence seems to be like a big contest to see who has the most weapons and can kill the most people (but then again that is what war is about right?). With containment, cutting off the spread of communism to our other allies in the world, and preventing the Soviets from gaining any more power then they already had seemed like an easy task. Also the constant money from American that was being given to Western Europe helped stop the spread of communism. So yes, I do agree with most of my fellow students when they say that Containment is the better option.
ReplyDelete-Kennedy 8B
On this question I would like to agree with Kennedy and Caitlin on containment. Containment is the way to go becaus it contains the "problem". By that I mean it will hold off the nuclear warfare. Also it will stop the spread of communism to the allies. When deterrence is just preventing the problem. They could attempt to prevent the spread of communism and nuclear warfare but you would not neccesarily beable to control it. That is also a big factor, in containment you are able to control the issue at hand better then just preventing it. Prevention may only be temporary.
ReplyDelete-Katherine Kiklis
after my whole paragraph got deleted i think im "happy". I think containment would be the best because we could control the communist and there programs. this can also stop the communist to spreed to other countries. we could also make sure that nothing is happening secretly in the soviet union. we can also demolish the nukes and the records of the nukes.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Toth signing off i think
Tate M
ReplyDeleteI would perfer the tactic of containment. I would much rather stop communism from spreading to other countries. This is because Soviets had a great hostility towards the west, and wanted to undermine them. However, the Americans knew the Soviets were against war. In the Truman Doctrine, America finalized the containment of the Soviets. With this help, Greece and Turkey were able to fight against the spread communism. In detterence,a communist country will most likely fight back. However, who is America to decide the fate of other countries.
I believe Containment was a more affective strategy during the war. Deterrence was just a hard thought to grasp, Deterrence will not get anyone anywhere. This is because every time one side of the war make more weapons it will just back fire on them because the other side will then make even more weapons and the problem will just build on its self. Containment is a smart strategy because it will actually make a difference in the stop of communism. I believe this because the whole point of Containment was to give money to the European countries to help stable them out and make them be able to function and move past the war. With the money it helped fix cities and bring in more food to the countries so they do not go corrupt. During the war if their had not been the idea of Containment then the western europe would have become Communist under soviet rule and there would have been a WW III. So it was a smart idea from the Americans to donate money to Europe because it stopped a powerful country (Russia) from gaining control over Europe and putting the whole world in danger once again, so this is why i believe Containment was the better option of the two.
ReplyDeleteDeterrence was a better method in my eye. First it supplied America with nuclear weapons which we need considering all the wars we are involved in. Secondly it keeps America on top. Pretend if we did use containment what would stop the Russians from nuking us then. It would give them even more reason to nuke us and we might not have as many nuclear weapons prepared. Yes, Deterrence is the more violent way but, I feel it is a much more efficient than containment. In a case such as war where you can't be to risky I feel the more efficient and easier way is always the right choice. Do i believe in violence no. But, this in my opinion is the best option to stop communism.
ReplyDeleteContainment is the better option, but difficult to put into action. It is more difficult to contain Communism from spreading to poor countries because they are more vulnerable to its promises. In contrast to communism, capitalism selects and rewards the best work, not all work. In impoverished poorer countries, communism seems ideal! Every one is created equal, "free" necessities of life for all. How can the U.S contain countries with that mindset? Now, We can use the Internet and promote history education in foreign nations. Deterrence appears to be a good option, especially once communism spreads. However, deterring war, such as with arms build up, is very costly. The flaw in deterrence is that it can lead to another war. Giving weapons to the Afghanis in order to deter and scare Russia actually backfired! The Afghanis now use the weapons against us. Overall, both strategies have flaws, but effective containment is perhaps a better option, if it can be done, to prevent another World War.
ReplyDelete-Eric C.
I think containment was a better and safer way to stop the spread of Communism. Containment was less dangerous because it was just a process of blocking the rest of Europe off from the Soviet Union. If the UN could stop the spread of Communism than there would most likely be no war because the Soviets would have no other countries fighting along side. Deterrence was a very dangerous method because both sides had the possession of nuclear weapons. if one weapon was detonated, then the other side would have to fire back with more force, in the end countries could be destroyed.
ReplyDelete-Bria
Containment was a much better option and more effective. Containment will help build a strong economy by giving Europe money and defense to stop the spread of communism. Deterrence is just a way for the United States and Europe to see who is the strongest with their weapons. This is not as effective as trying to contain communism not as violently. By America giving Europe money, that is already slowing down the spread of communism and building up Europe's economy. If we continue to use non-violent methods the war could end much sooner. Deterrence would be a good option once communism has spread, but in the current situation deterrence appears to be extremely costly. Deterrence would create possibly another "world war" which is the last thing America wants. Containment is a better method to avoid war and stop the spread of communism
ReplyDeleteI would rather have containment than deterrence because containment could stop communism and a nuclear attack. IF using containment communism could be only in one country. IF you would use Deterrence that is a way to basically scare your enemy, to make him think about what your next move is like cheese. Containment is also a less violent way of preventing communism. -RASHAD
ReplyDeleteI would prefer the method of containment because i feel communism is the worst. If the US can stop other countries from turning to communism, war would not be as bad. The people should have rights and the communistic countries are so different from the United States. Their way of life is totally different and most do not have the same safety procedures that are practiced in the US. The way that is the least violent is the best way. Violence is never the answer to a problem and anyway of preventing it, is needed during the cold war. If using deterrence the different sides of the war will just be trying to have better weapons than the other. This will not end until one decides to give up. Containment will solve problems and that is why i would chose it.
ReplyDelete- *John Voorhees*
I would rather use deterrence because it is a faster way to get rid of communism. Even though deterrence is very risky, I believe that the pros out way the cons. A con is that each side builds up their arsenal until two great forces, with a push of a button can demolish each other to nothing. A pro is that if the anti-communist win the deterrence the communism is basically gone. Deterrence is a key role in many things other than just war. It is used in instances such as poker or betting. Containment, although safer, takes a much longer time to work. Deterrence is better as a whole because it is faster and does a better job at ridding the world of communism.
ReplyDelete