<p>Key word in there was majority AJ. I listed a quote from the federalist papers earlier that was directly the opposite of what the quote on the test meant.</p>
<p>i can see how army would be the answer...but immediately following the war...the nuclear issue was the biggest issue..the U.s. was afraid that the soviets were going to gain german technology on ballistic missiles, and attempted to produec their own. they were only sucessful in the late 1950's. PRODUCTION, began immediately after WWII cause of hte threat of russio nuclear arms.</p>
<p>just do me a favor, go to your history textbook/ review book, and look at the section immediately following WWII. It doesn't talk about miilitary build up under the soviets...it talks about nukes. The berlin wall =/= immediately after world war. If they were looking for army, they wouldn't have used IMMEDIATELY. They would have said, "after the war", which would have been army.</p>
<p>I think question is one that most people (over 85%) got wrong, just like char's notion about the economy queston.</p>
<p>MED, I think you are overthinking this question. Happens to everyone. If your reasoning, however, proves correct, the collegeboard has no soul.</p>
<p>If you read through the link I posted, the US actually had the German scientists transported to the US, and had IRBM's (not IBCMs, but very similar) developed well before the USSR.</p>
<p>Random question. Does it look bad if you take the same subject test 3 times, but on the third time you get the highest score?</p>
<p>i know i know...but the greatest percieved threat to the united states was ballistic missiles...the key word are immediately...and percieved...which indicate --right after the war ended and ---percieved (doesn't have to exist). See my reasoing ?</p>
<p>MED you give some good arguments, however, I think that icbms would have been the right answer only if they asked it for the kennedy administration not truman.</p>
<p>haha, w/e it's just one question out of 90 on a test with a good curve. I'm sure 70% of people on this board will probably pull out a 700+, just because people who go onto college confidential, especially as juniors, are by their nature overachievers.</p>
<p>ussr's army could've swept through europe</p>
<p>that was my reasoning behind it, and it seems like the best choice. "Perceived" part was a bit tricky though. But it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the threat was not there.</p>
<p>I put technology, solely because the word "perceived" threw me off</p>
<p>hmm, well why wouldnt atomic bomb work? instead of icbms</p>
<p>that wasn't a choice.</p>
<p>wouldnt it be part of technology?</p>
<p>I don't think tech was a choice, and even if it was, I would still go with army. The military industrial complex really got going in the 50's with the piece of legislature passed during the korean war, which gave tons of money to defense.</p>
<p>technology was a choice</p>
<p>the military industrial complex came into being because of the perceived notion that the Soviets were gaining a technological advantage over the US.</p>
<p>well...i dont think the us was worried about the army. I can completely see why you guys would put army down, for reasons such as the threat o the spread of communism into satellite nations. However, this threat was not through military force, but rather by assistance by the USSR, such as giving food rations to impoverished countries, and then taking over. By and large, during the Berlin airlift, the U.S. gave a crap about the Soviet Army in west berlin. They defied the soviet blockade by sending rations to Americans blocked by the Soviet. They were well aware taht this might have caused war, yet they didn't care. They knew they were able to defend themselves. IF they didn't, they wouldnt ahve risked sending rations and fortifying bombers. The U.S. however, did percieve that the USSR would get german ballistic technology immediately following the war.</p>
<p>on top of that, when you look at any history book following WWII, all they talk about is the immediate problem of nuclear gain by the Soviets. Even during the Berlin Airlift, no mention of a strong army is made. Even during the technology race, the space race, and the arms race, no mention of USSR's army was made. The army was not formiddable; the nuclear heads were. </p>
<p>And do check your history book immediately after WWII. It doesn't lie. Take notice to baruch plan.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the United States was not worried about the USSR army immediately following war, because immediatley following the war, the USSR signed the United Nations security council, essentially removing their threat<---The USSR, in signing, agreed to protect us militarily (ARMY)</p>
<p>I think you've made your point, you can calm down now.</p>
<p>I'm still not convinced. And although the answer choice might have been worded differently, technology sounds better than icbm. WAIT. I just remembered that one of the other choices was soviet nuke submarines. These fired ballistic missiles. Therefore, it couldn't have been ballistic missiles if submarines was wrong (which it was).</p>