How would George W Bush handle Cold War?

Assuming George W Bush was president much earlier, how would he have handled (if he could) the Cold War with the Soviet Union?

Would we have a full blown nuclear holocaust with up to 100M dead and half the US a radioactive wasteland?
 
This thread is destined to devolve into mayhem and mockery.

No, I don't think he would have. If we can just assume that for some reason, the USSR survived through the '90s but was still on a downward swing, then Bush would probably follow the footsteps of Reagan and H.W. in a harder push to bring the Soviet Union down. Actions in the Middle East and building a closer relationship to China would certainly be on his agenda. A movement into Iraq might be seen not as a move against terrorism, but a move against communism, assuming the Soviets would be too weak to respond with military help in the country.

Of course, this is assuming A LOT: that there's some legitimate reason to go into Iraq. Bush would only go in if there was a previous war with Iraq during his father's administration and then some sort of terrorist attack in Bush's own. This might be possible if a weakening Soviet Union is giving terrorists their weapons to do their bidding.
 
Assuming George W Bush was president much earlier, how would he have handled (if he could) the Cold War with the Soviet Union?

Would we have a full blown nuclear holocaust with up to 100M dead and half the US a radioactive wasteland?

No...

Bush was not a warmonger as some would say, and does actually have common sense you know...

With nothing like 9/11 to spur him and the country into action mode, I would imagine that he would be something of Reagan-light
 
This thread is destined to devolve into mayhem and mockery.

No, I don't think he would have. If we can just assume that for some reason, the USSR survived through the '90s but was still on a downward swing, then Bush would probably follow the footsteps of Reagan and H.W. in a harder push to bring the Soviet Union down. Actions in the Middle East and building a closer relationship to China would certainly be on his agenda. A movement into Iraq might be seen not as a move against terrorism, but a move against communism, assuming the Soviets would be too weak to respond with military help in the country.

Of course, this is assuming A LOT: that there's some legitimate reason to go into Iraq. Bush would only go in if there was a previous war with Iraq during his father's administration and then some sort of terrorist attack in Bush's own. This might be possible if a weakening Soviet Union is giving terrorists their weapons to do their bidding.

You obviously misread my opening question:

I'm referring to Bush 43 being President from 1981 onwards. (born much ealier than 1946..let's say between 1915-1925) but still the unilaterist, with us or against us, attitude....
 

MacCaulay

Banned
You obviously misread my opening question:

I'm referring to Bush 43 being President from 1981 onwards. (born much ealier than 1946..let's say between 1915-1925) but still the unilaterist, with us or against us, attitude....

I just want to say right off the bat, that I'm not saying any of this to be political. I'm not such a big fan of Bush, but I'm just saying this stuff because it's my opinion on the topic:

Dubya used a very big "us vs. them" approach to foreign policy. He was a big fan of unilateral military force. He very definitely used covert force in ways that he wouldn't admit unless his administration was caught red handed.

None of those are anything that were out of the ordinary in the Cold War. Eisenhower and Kennedy's greenlighting of the plan for the Bay of Pigs (it may have happened on Kennedy's watch, but Eisenhower had okayed a much larger plan), Truman's intervention in Korea, the U2 shootdown, Vietnam, etc.

I don't see any reason he'd be signicantly different than Reagan or Johnson. My father, who was born in the 40s and grew up in the 60s, often compares him to LBJ.
 
If George W. Bush was born much earlier then it would change who he was and the kind of president he would be.
It would be easier for him to get involved in politics sooner than have him be born earlier and have the same polices largely still intact.
 
The unilateralism and arrogance that characterized the President George W. Bush Administration was the result of the fact that the United States is the remaining world superpower and no nation can currently challenge the United States militarily.

If the Soviet Union was intact as it was in 1981 and Leonid Brezhnev was its leader, a President George W. Bush Administration would not have had the same level of unilateralism and arrogance. In 1981, Bush would not have been able to follow what became known as the "Bush Doctrine" and launch preemptive wars against nations labeled as threats against the United States since most likely these nations would have been clients of the Soviet Union.

The President George W. Bush Administration would probably been composed of the same individuals that were part of the President Ronald Reagan Administration, who in turn were part of the President George HW Bush Administration, though they might have held different job titles within the administration. Most likely the policies would have been very similar to Ronald Reagan's. Political conservatives at the time would listen to the same opinion leaders. Bush wouldn't have been the "great communicator" or its "a new day in America" feel good president that Reagan was. But I don't believe that the policies would have been materially different between "Dubya" and Reagan.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
If George W. Bush was born much earlier then it would change who he was and the kind of president he would be.
It would be easier for him to get involved in politics sooner than have him be born earlier and have the same polices largely still intact.

Yeah, I think we're just taking this as kind of an ISOT.

Personally, I think the guy was trying to start a flame-war. I'm glad no one did it. That speaks highly of the board so far.
 
You obviously misread my opening question:

I'm referring to Bush 43 being President from 1981 onwards. (born much ealier than 1946..let's say between 1915-1925) but still the unilaterist, with us or against us, attitude....

I think it would be easier if you had some Bush equivalent being born and elected President in the Eighties since Bush Sr. was not born in the period 1915-1925.
 

Hendryk

Banned
I'm referring to Bush 43 being President from 1981 onwards. (born much ealier than 1946..let's say between 1915-1925) but still the unilaterist, with us or against us, attitude....
So basically you want George W. Bush's mind to be transferred in the body of his own father. I don't think that kind of concept belongs in this forum, better try ASB.

The premise doesn't make sense because Bush Jr. is the kind of person he is due to his upbringing and life experiences. Change those, and you have a different person. It's like those threads about Napoleon or Hitler being born in the US.
 
This is why I was assuming it was more or less a Cold War lasting to the 21st Century and how Bush would handle it. It's an ISOT/ASB otherwise.

And no I wasn't trying to start a flame war.
 
Assuming..

that W has the same fetal alcohol syndrome, drug-addicted, sociopathic, cowardly, privileged frat-boy personality the Earth is now a burnt out cinder orbiting an unremarkable mid-size star.

s
 
I posted my answer to the question posed. Just because you cannot tolerate any response that goes outside of your worldview you report me?

Grow up or limit your posts to freerepublic.com

s:D

No, I reported you because you are a troll who has sprayed flaming liquid upon multiple threads.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
that W has the same fetal alcohol syndrome, drug-addicted, sociopathic, cowardly, privileged frat-boy personality the Earth is now a burnt out cinder orbiting an unremarkable mid-size star.

s

It's pretty hard to troll with criticism of Bush but you're managing it. And posting similar things in multiple threads. In fact basically everything that you've posted on this board is over-the-top flamebait. We don't do that here.

You're kicked for a week.
 
Top