What does the term, cold war exactly mean?
550371
Simply put, a cold war is a war where we are acting aggressively toward another country, and they toward us, but no shots are being fired.  It's kind of like being in a fight with your boy/girlfriend.  No one is being physically hurt, but at any time one of you could snap and go nuclear.  \n\nHope that makes sense to you!
641254
Try this link and it talks about the war in containment terms. http://faculty.washington.edu/rhennes/KORSUCCESS.html
1148403
It's basically who ever is on the upside of a treaty wins. Sometimes like in the WWs the central and axis powers lost by accepting an unconditional surrender (complete surrender). Sometimes it is who ever conquers the whole country, not necessarily by determined by casualties.
788764
Communism is the buzzword.  But really its called Imperialism.\nWars outside of national soil are for greed and pride.\nKorea and Vietnam did not represent a threat to the US.  Not until they decided to attack first.
333717
Gosh, this is difficult... I promised myself I'd never get involved in giving homework help (because of the reported abuse of internet 'help' happening here in the UK).\n\nHowever, the Cold War is a part of my personal history and I feel duty bound to pass on my experience to a new generation, so here goes...\n\nThe predominant feeling in my family was of uncertainty and sometimes (mobilisation of Warsaw Pact troops on the German border, incursion of Soviet shipping into our territorial waters, the Cuba Crisis etc) downright fear.\n\nMy Dad joined the Territorial Army (TA)(a bit like the US National Guard I suspect), so he'd be trained to do his bit when the 'coldness' went and we were at war again. With the threat of atom bombs there was a sort of sense that any day could be our last, so there was no real feeling of a certain future to save or plan for. The idea of 'what matters is that we are alive today, so let's make the most of that' - was a pretty widespread feeling.\n\nAt the time of the Cuba Crisis I was still at school and in almost all classes there was a radio turned on. We were given instructions where to go, and what to do in case of nuclear missile attack and shown public information films on Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare. Perhaps they thought young lads would be excited by the adventure - I was scared out of my wits and couldn't sleep at night...\n\nI guess we also felt helpless here in England. We are closer to Russia (well within striking distance of even their home-based weaponry) and no longer a major player on the world stage. Our future depended on how the Americans responded and I think that bred a sort of resentment, as well as adding to the insecurity.\n\nHow did it affect us? For me personally it had a similar affect to that on my dad. When I was old enough I joined the TA so I'd be ready when the time came. And even when the Cold War was more 'frozen' and the threat seemed less imminent, I still joined the regular Army. As I have already said we didn't bother with savings, house purchase, even saving plans inthose days... we just lived for today and short term goals became more important than perhaps they should have been. I think we were also less inclined to forgive, and more suspicious of people, which may have contributed (along with the stress) to marriage and relationship breakdowns.\n\nSpending went up, not because wages were much higher, but because we wanted to enjoy life while we had the chance and most people were focussed on the 'here and now' in terms of what they ate, how they dressed and so on.\n\nThis is getting far too long, but I hope I've given you some idea of our feelings and what it was like for an ordinary English family to live through the Cold War...
281855
The USSR was bent on world domination, and we had to maintain a balance of power or face nuclear war.The arms race and space programs and Vietnam,Korea were results. Domestically, anti war and civil rights issues nearly split the country.
1053016
(m)\n\nSatellite state or client state is a political term that refers to a country which is formally independent but which is primarily subject to the domination of another, larger power. The term has been coined by analogy to stellar objects orbiting a larger object, such as planets revolving around the sun, and was initially used to refer to Central and Eastern European countries of the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. It implied that the countries in question were "satellites" under the hegemony of the Soviet Union. Other countries in the Soviet sphere of influence during the Cold War - such as North Korea (especially in the decades surrounding the Korean War) and Fidel Castro's Cuba (particularly after joining the Comecon) - were often labelled satellite states.\n\nThe term is sometimes used more loosely (and with a less sinister overtone) to refer to small countries whose foreign policy is aligned with a larger power: the so-called Anglosphere is a good example.
1180278
The Political Process is just the order in which governments do things..its quite an open ended phrases, lol, but it basically means the course of diplomacy
34957
In nuclear war, each country that have the nuclear strike capability will throw out all of their nuclear bomb or missile to their opponent population center or military facilities. The result is catastrophic, the nuclear winter is coming. If half of entire world nuclear stock is used, it's already enough to end humans' civilization.\nBasically, in nuclear winter, the sun is blocked by thick smoke for several weeks or years, making it very cold. Don't forget the lethal radiation from nuclear fallout. The ozone will be also depleted. This all will wipe out all plant, animal, agriciulture, phytoplankton, and human. Even there are survivors, the extreme cold weather, high radiation, disease, and lack (or no) food will wipe out almost (if not all) every living life-forms from earth.
11239
Sites of conflict weren't limited to Cuba and Afghanistan--there were ideological conflicts throughout the world at the time. Many countries in South America, Asia, etc. Though the US and USSR didn't ever really have direct contact, the cold war was very real though many people at the time didn't want to recognize that it actually was a war. \n\nThe USSR was actively promoting Communism throughout the world to extend their reach. Luckily Reagan had the insight to know that just because they weren't attacking us--the spread of Communism would be just as good as if they were attacking us. Reagan countered the USSR's pursuits and won. I think the USSR would still exist today if Reagan hadn't actively countered them and given the US "peace through strength". Because he refused to play Russia's game, they were forced into trying to keep up with the US's military and nuclear buildup which eventually lead them to an economic crisis--forcing them to snap out of their ploys of world domination.
656483
Okay - you need to use Google, and then to get to a library for supportable facts.\n\nBut basically, it is a phrase to refer to a weak, ineffective navy that consists mainly of outdated ships.  This especially applies to Canada's pre-WWII navy.  By the end of the war, of course, we had one of the most powerful naval forces in the world.\n\nIt is the natural result of neglect and indifference towards world affairs.
1137717
Do you even know what the words 'communist' and 'regime'  mean?
191154
Economic sanctions is when you put restrictions on your trade with another country, to pressure them into doing something.  A cold war is a struggle without actually a war, so economic sanctions would fit right in.
647788
I will agree hate is a strong word but there are reasons there is anger at the US government.  But for most people this does not extend to citizens.\n\nDuring the cold war The US government and USSR were opertunists.  Using other countries during the cold war to gain an advantage.  Trying to gain the advantage by placing military bases in countries around the Soviet Union and US then making promises to the other countries, of what they will do for these countries if they helped in the cold war.  Though the US saw few casulties of the cold war many other countries around USSR and places like CUBA were activly at war to protect their boarders because the US or USSR  had bases there.  \n\nAfter the war the US failed to follow through with most of the promises it made and many of the countries that were fighting during the cold war still face hostility.  These wars are blamed on the US and USSR.  THese countries see the US grandstanding and sending money to all the European countries.  While refusing to make good on their promises to them it gets them upset.  \n\nOn top of that there is the problem that they US plays world police and is hypocritical.  Saying it is ok for some countries to have nuke power but not others.   This is just a few of the reasons but there are many.
127420
The Third World was a term coined during the Cold War. At the time the world was divided into two major power blocs, the Communist Bloc represented mainly by the USSR and China and the Western Bloc represented by the USA and Western Europe. \n\nThe Third World simply referred to countries like India or Egypt that were not strongly aligned with either power block. \n\nAlmost all of those countries were also non-industrialised nations with small economies. As a result ‘Third World’ came to refer non-industrialised or underdeveloped nations, and within 15 years everyone had forgotten what the term had originally meant.\n\n\nSorry sandworm, nothing at all to do with the ‘New World’. It was never explicitely stated, but if we had to name them then the First World nations were the westernised capitalist countries such as the NATO nations, Australia and Japan.  The second world were the Communist countries such as the Warsaw Pact countries, China and Cuba.
134423
Brinksmanship diplomacy. They hope that even just the threat of their having nukes will cause other countries to bow to their demands.\n\nIt's no different than was the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
1031160
War is the final arm of diplomacy.  This is the way a nation gets what it needs and wants.  Sometimes a nation uses force.  It's not only about freedom, it's also about furthering our national interests, yes even keeping the oil flowing.  Sometimes its about land (the Mexican War and the Spanish American War), occasionally it's about freedoms like in WWII.