Could the Cold War have continued to present day?

Um, the title pretty much sums it up. Would it be possible for the Cold War to endure, and what could cause it to have done so? Also, what impact would another 20 years of fear and semi-hostility have on the economy, politics and culture of the free countries?

Also, given another 20 years, would communism likely be in a stronger position globally, or recede?
 
Um, the title pretty much sums it up. Would it be possible for the Cold War to endure, and what could cause it to have done so?

A limited atomic war, not bad enough to wipe out either side but enough to generate bitter hatred and xenophobia might do it. Or someone competent or ruthless enough taking power instead of Gorbachev (although I doubt there were any really likely candidates). For an earlier POD, some sort of closer union between the USSR and China might do - with added inputs from China, the planned economy might take longer to run out of steam.

In any case, the USSR probably looks like North Korea in the Large Economy Size by 2010. (Some sort of at least partly successful agricultural reform is probably needed to avoid getting to the shooting-food-rioters-in-the-streets state of affairs).

Also, what impact would another 20 years of fear and semi-hostility have on the economy, politics and culture of the free countries??

Actually, it might weaken the position of the US right in some ways, in that tough-guy posturing of the Reagan variety fails to bring down the USSR, and Communism does not simply collapse like a pricked bubble: leftists have been very badly injured OTL by the collapse of Communism - its continued survival, however repressive, is an argument against free-for-all capitalistm being the Only Way.

Also, given another 20 years, would communism likely be in a stronger position globally, or recede?

See above. North Korea is not a model anyone wants to imitate.

More thoughts later.

Bruce
 
In any case, the USSR probably looks like North Korea in the Large Economy Size by 2010. (Some sort of at least partly successful agricultural reform is probably needed to avoid getting to the shooting-food-rioters-in-the-streets state of affairs).
They endured Stalin and WW2 and still managed to improve- is it really inescapable for them to end up like NK? Cuba would suggest not, as they aren't doing paticularly badly(at least compared to NK) despite ostracism.
 
They endured Stalin and WW2 and still managed to improve- is it really inescapable for them to end up like NK? Cuba would suggest not, as they aren't doing paticularly badly(at least compared to NK) despite ostracism.

Cuba isn't holding down a vast multinational empire and engaging in a military game of chicken with the world's largest economy. And the USSR still had a lot of growth potential simply because it was so backwards - of course you can grow your economy if it's just basic stuff like moving people from farms to factories or building (cheap, crumbly) housing or opening new mines or drilling more oil.

I didn't mean it literally in the xenophobic state-as-a-cult situation they have nowadays in N. Korea. But the Soviet system had pretty much reached its limits by the 1980s - easily extractable raw materials were increasingly hard to find, pollution levels were extraodinarily bad, increases in productivity were almost nil. Continuing the cold war was horrendously expensive: the only way it can continue as a fundamental ideological opponent of the US is to remain a communist state, and the only way to maintain itself as a militarily formidable communist regime with stagnant or declining living standards is to force more labor out of the population and utterly repress any dissent, outside ideas, etc.

Now I suppose that if the USSR were to change itself into a fascist-Russian nationalist multinational dictatorship, it could remain ideologically opposed to the US while moving to a capitalist economy. But given Russian history, such a transformation seems unlike: Zhirinovsky was always more hot air than fire. A USSR that goes the capitalist route is undermining the logical basis of its own empire: if it is fine and dandy for the USSR to go capitalist, what is the logical rationale for Soviet military interference in Eastern Europe when they change their government? Why should it intervene to keep Communist parties with absolutely no legitimacy - now not only no nationalist legitimacy, but now no world-historical or economic legitimacy? The only excuse is "what we have, we hold."

And of course if the USSR pulls out of Eastern Europe, 50% of cold war tensions are eliminated. Throw in a few arms deals and we're at 80%.

Bruce
 
Continuing the cold war was horrendously expensive: the only way it can continue as a fundamental ideological opponent of the US is to remain a communist state, and the only way to maintain itself as a militarily formidable communist regime with stagnant or declining living standards is to force more labor out of the population and utterly repress any dissent, outside ideas, etc.

The information/technology revolution of the eighties played a major role in ending the Cold War. Without it, the War could continue today, with much the same demeanor as it had from 1972-1984. The repression required to keep the USSR in the Cold War became impossibly costly with the advent of widespread computing. We should be glad that Bill Gates was wrong in the early eighties when he said 640 kb should be "enough memory for anyone."
 
Who says it's not? The US is still demonizing Russia, we're still planning costly missile shields, we (and Russia) still attempt to prop up nations as chess pieces*.

* It should be noted that I favor said nations being propped up by someone, since it's the only way they have to get any attention. (Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia)
 
Who says it's not? The US is still demonizing Russia, we're still planning costly missile shields, we (and Russia) still attempt to prop up nations as chess pieces*.

* It should be noted that I favor said nations being propped up by someone, since it's the only way they have to get any attention. (Kosovo, South Ossetia, Abkhazia)
That's less the Cold War Continued than two powerful countries with competeing interests getting factious. The scenario in the OP seems to call for a full-bore, Soviet Union survives-type situations.

Still, you raise an interesting point: will the historians of the far future judge things as clearly as we do now (ie. the Cold War ended in 1991) or, given possible future events, view this period as one of temporary 'cease-fire,' as some do today about the two World Wars, with some calling them collectively the "Second Thirty Years' War."
 
There is a rather good story called The Last War that I have been reading lately. It involves a surviving soviet union/WARPAC which following a political disturbance in poland goes to war with NATO.

Kind of a better Red Storm Rising set in the modern day.
 
The information/technology revolution of the eighties played a major role in ending the Cold War. Without it, the War could continue today, with much the same demeanor as it had from 1972-1984. The repression required to keep the USSR in the Cold War became impossibly costly with the advent of widespread computing. We should be glad that Bill Gates was wrong in the early eighties when he said 640 kb should be "enough memory for anyone."

Advanced computing ... which hardly any Soviets had access to. I'm not sure what your argument is - could you expand on this?

Bruce
 
Still, you raise an interesting point: will the historians of the far future judge things as clearly as we do now (ie. the Cold War ended in 1991) or, given possible future events, view this period as one of temporary 'cease-fire,' as some do today about the two World Wars, with some calling them collectively the "Second Thirty Years' War."

I doubt it - the ideological nature of the conflict was very real, and with Communism's collapse an entire _kind_ of confrontation ended. Unless the Russians end up under some sort of newer and better totalitarianism, we've just returned to good old-fashioned nationalist pissing contests.

Bruce
 
I often wonder about that myself. When I was in high school in the 1980's, the consensus among us would have thought the USSR would have collapsed by 2020 but we were a generation off. I'm working on a Morrow Project game and I'm toying with the idea of the Cold War lasting until 2012/2020 and I'm looking at this thread for ideas. My guess is maybe if the 1991 coup succeeded where the perps took out Gorbachev or kicked him out of the USSR at least along with some sniper taking out Boris Yeltsin when he stood on top of that BMP, then I guess it would be possible for a Communist or largely Communist USSR to be around now. Less likely but a maybe would be the 1993 coup.
 
The Cold War

The 1991 coup was the last gasp of the old way; its leaders were not that well organized and very divided among themselves (their nominal leader was drunk throughout the whole affair). For the USSR to survive as a major Cold War threat requires a generational change sooner than Gorbachev, possibly in place of Andropov (or earlier) who could hold it together despite its economic stagnation and excessive military budget. Most likely you are looking at the state evolving into a Russian Nationalist Empire, perhaps under a military dictatorship. Not a clown like Zhirinovsky, but someone far more ruthless and skilled.Of course, the new leadership could try to follow the Chinese model.
 
Top