Well if the NDSM is the only thing they'd give us, I might have an issue. The NDSM, if award for the Cold War, would then become the US Armed Forces' "General Service" medal.

Meaning just about every swing joe will have it. The only period not covered would be between the closeout of the first Gulf War and 9-11.

If they issued an ADSM with a "Cold War" Clasps or Bar, I'd be happy with that because it recognizes OUR Service not just service in general.   

Do you see what I'm getting at? Do we want to recognized just for serving (NDSM) or do we want to be recognized for the unique service that you provided (CWVM)?

Agree with Joe on all points.

In addition, remember that the NDSM has been issued only during periods of MAJOR conflict - the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, and the GWOT (mostly due to Iraq and Afghanistan). And yes, I fully realize the cost of the Cold War to this nation in terms of lives, materiel' and treasure; still, the NDSM (in my opinion) is not applicable nor appropriate for the entire Cold War period. As Joe said, the NDSM would simply become a "General Service" medal (though one can argue that it has become precisely that, given the probable decades-long struggle that will constitute the contemporary GWOT [or whatever they choose to call it now]).

I could live with an ADSM, especially given that it would no doubt become synonymous with Cold War service (given that the original service dates of 1939-41 are ancient history for most people), but would nonetheless prefer a clearly-stated COLD WAR medal, which commemorates not only the men and women who served, but also honors the nation's will and purpose to see a global struggle to ultimate victory after 46 years.

USMC_Kinda_Guy  

I agree with Joe, we have been fighting for a Cold War Victory Medal for years, but I do understand the feelings, desires and needs for many of us to be appropriately awarded for our service. Simply put we all should be decorated, we earned the right.  Every time I look at my "Cold War Certificate", which is inclusive of civilian service during that period, I become bothered by it, because to me it will never justify our service and dedication to duty; and worse yet in my opinion, that certificate treads on the HONOR of those who gave all of everything they were or could ever be in service to our country.
So, I do hope we will stay our course, hold the line, not waiver and continue our long, long quest for proper recognition of the CWVM.  Further, I am of the opinion, in some political circles, an award of the CWVM may be perceived as "politically incorrect", but you see, I don't care what a particular country might think or might not think, like all of you WE SERVED OUR NATION, SOME OF US DIED FOR OUR NATION during the Cold War Period and they and we held the line.  Please brothers and sisters, keep the faith and faith will serve us well. Our battle is long and sometimes hard, but some day we will get the MEDAL for them.

jim811

The striking cost for a named Cold War medal would not amount to a penny more than a re-strike of another medal.  The Cold War rates its own medal.

Great point Shuman regarding the issuance of a ADSM with clasp as opposed to a NDSM which would make it a "All have it" type of medal.  But I see that you are set on calling this medal a CWVM.    I thought the latest issue on this was what it would take to get it to finally pass?  Calling it a VICTORY medal or calling it a SERVICE medal?

Does the CW deserve a stand alone medal yes, actually more than one. I would not dwell on whether we get the NDSM at this point until the CW is properly recognized.

Service Medals: Types; campaign, war, national emergency, expedition, or the
fulfillment of specified Service requirements in a creditable manner.

I think we have gotten discombobulated again on what the CWSM initiative is about. Let me state this first. Do we deserve a Cold War Victory Medal, YES. Do we have support from all parties on a Victory Medal, IFFY and most likely not, the Victory Medal aspect has it's issues politically on both sides. Do we need a Victory Medal, NO. If the Victory medal was to happen, it would be comparable to the WWII Victory Medal which awarded to all who served, but comes with no attachments, so it does not achieve the goal of recognition for Expeditionary, Campaign, Combat duty engaged in during the off War periods for Cold War Vets. The Victory Medal would need following medals or actions by congress to open up other medals criteria for those duties(the fight continues)

The NDSM is a national emergency type medal which is recognition that does not equate to solve the issue above either in itself.

The ADSM is a campaign Medal for service for 12 months and does get you closer to the goal. Could even have new specific clasps created etc...

The Cold War Service Medal being proposed could be either: National emergency type or Campaign type. What the medal is named is not exclusive to it's type. Option1: a CWSM as nationally emergency type for service with special appurtenances that make the CWSM also a campaign or special service rating(example: the new Air Force Expeditionary Ribbon with the Gold Boarder for Combat duty) The CWSM could have a device for exped, combat etc...so deemed worthy by Dod.  Option2: But, what we are proposing is the CWSM be a Campaign medal like it was passed in 2001 NDAA, That would allow the CWSM to potentially be clarified with operation credit(stars) or clasps for duty specified by DoD. This Type of medal would get Cold Warriors a medal for service during a period that would rate Benefits and potentially veterans preference. (this is the COST, the congress is nervous about, not actually the cost of the medals per say) For Cold Warriors that do not have a single award , that do not qualify for memberships, that do not get equality in treatment, or tax breaks, or other earned, this is the back breaker. This method puts the CWSM along side of the VSM in weight, it should not be compared to by service but by type. 

The Victory Medal angle creates problems that retroactively asks to declare war, which is a whole can of worms we are finding. Keep in mind President Reagan promised we would not gloat, we would not talk about winners and losers. It makes this all more difficult. Even though Victory is understood. If the CWSM is achieved like above, we would be in our rights to talk victory at that point and fight on for memorials, national days for us etc...           

I believe the CWSM as a campaign medal achieves the most, the AFEM criteria should also be opened up to 1945-1991 for operations not yet awarded for. What would be best, well, a complete ensemble of theatre medals, likely no. Will everyone be happy, never.






(Message edited by SACWARRIOR On 09/20/2009 12:07:28)

I too agree with the CWSM versus the CWVM.

CWSM.

I'm fine with either one - Victory or Service - which is why I think it's wiser to simply include references to BOTH types whenever I write about this issue (or simply write COLD WAR MEDAL). Whichever one is easier for the politicians to pass; the path of least resistance, so to speak.

The biggest drawback to a "Victory" medal, beyond the obvious fact that the war was never declared by the Congress, are possible Russian objections. Keep in mind that, because of Russian protests, we've just revoked plans for a real-world anti-missle defense system in Poland and the Chek Republic. Now you gotta ask yourselves, how much do you want to risk getting ANY Cold War medal by insisting on including "Victory" in the title? Everyone knows - on BOTH sides - who won the darn thing, so why insist on using a provocative term that hasn't been used on a military medal since the Second World War? (Last time I looked, we won in Panama, Grenada, the First Gulf War, etc and did just fine without "Victory" on any of those medals).

Anyhoo, just my thoughts on the topic.

USMC_Kinda_Guy     

Youre right about that "V " for Victory WWII thing.  To me, "victory" sounds like a High School football motto.  "Can I get a rythme with that medal?  Gimme a VEE....gimme a I.......gimme a CEEE.....gimme a Teee:"....ect... To say you got a service medal, you imply that you were there.  You served during the time.  A victory medal seems to imply that you push your view onto someone that we won.  (When Russia is still somewhat viewed a threat.  Look at Venezuela lately buying up weapons from the soviets.).

Of course, I am not trying to change anyone's views here on the name calling of a medal issue.   Just my two cents.