good ole mutual annihilation.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
lixy wrote:
But unlike you, I’ll admit that it’s done more good than bad. And unlike Irish or Zap, I won’t delude myself into thinking that anything other than the massive destructive potential of modern bomb is behind Man not getting into WWIII.
That’s a fair point that I actually thought about after I typed my post.
The nuke has probably done more for world peace then the UN.[/quote]
Nope, it is US military bases all over the world. MAD only works for a few nations, those with the bomb. There are a hell of a lot more potential large scale conflicts.
We all know the US would not fire nukes if Europe would have been invaded by the USSR. Why would we destroy the world?
We know France would not fire off their nukes if Germany were invaded.
The reason the Russkies didn’t invade was the US military presence.
Zap, Zap, Zap…
It’s far more complicated.
But in any case, US bases aren’t a peacekeeper, they’re build for quasiimperial reasons. You can make superpower politics with a fancy piece of paper, but things aren’t truly ratified until a GI stomps his boot on foreign soil.
And US military presence in Germany is in fact only about logistics and, a few years back, guarding the nukes.
So yeah, the Russkie didn’t invade because of the bomb.
By the way, France, England and the others would surely launch at least a couple of nukes in the general eastern direction when the red tide would close in. It would look stupid if only the US and USSR bombed their neighbourhood (mainly Germany and Poland) into glass.
If there were no atom bombs, don’t you think Soviet Russia and the US wouldn’t have had a standoff long ago? Assuming of course, that WW2 would have magically ended the same way.
Thanks god for the bomb, but curse Satan for giving it to Pakistan 
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Assuming of course, that WW2 would have magically ended the same way.
[/quote]
If you mean what I think you mean, I’d advise to read a bit of history.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap, Zap, Zap…
It’s far more complicated.
But in any case, US bases aren’t a peacekeeper, they’re build for quasiimperial reasons. You can make superpower politics with a fancy piece of paper, but things aren’t truly ratified until a GI stomps his boot on foreign soil.
And US military presence in Germany is in fact only about logistics and, a few years back, guarding the nukes.
So yeah, the Russkie didn’t invade because of the bomb.
By the way, France, England and the others would surely launch at least a couple of nukes in the general eastern direction when the red tide would close in. It would look stupid if only the US and USSR bombed their neighbourhood (mainly Germany and Poland) into glass.
If there were no atom bombs, don’t you think Soviet Russia and the US wouldn’t have had a standoff long ago? Assuming of course, that WW2 would have magically ended the same way.
Thanks god for the bomb, but curse Satan for giving it to Pakistan ;)[/quote]
You are kidding yourself. France and England would not have lifted a hand if the US was not in Europe and the USSR decided to reunify Germany. They would never have dreamed of using nukes in such a situation.
To pretend that the US was only guarding nukes when our armor and air forces stood as the shield protecting Europe for decades is disingenuous.
Lixy, the Allies would have won of course, but since the outcome and hence the US’ role as a new superpower would be different, with invading Japan and stuff, I just want to ensure the protagonists in my little “what if” scenario are the same.
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
And there’s the catch. You cannot throw nukes around without getting some in return.
Besides, France and England, former power players would look beyond incompetent if a Soviet Army practically transformed one of their biggest neigbours, partners and allies into a radiating wasteland, poisoning huge areas of their own soil for decades at least.
They’d wipe out at least a few small russki cities, if only to show you’d better not mess with them.
Even France could at the very moment preemptively nuke all major russian or american cities. Their atomic subs alone have at least a few dozen warheads.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
And there’s the catch. You cannot throw nukes around without getting some in return.
Besides, France and England, former power players would look beyond incompetent if a Soviet Army practically transformed one of their biggest neigbours, partners and allies into a radiating wasteland, poisoning huge areas of their own soil for decades at least.
They’d wipe out at least a few small russki cities, if only to show you’d better not mess with them.
Even France could at the very moment preemptively nuke all major russian or american cities. Their atomic subs alone have at least a few dozen warheads.
[/quote]
Actually I agree.
How long before we have the bomb?
Three years?
Just imagine!
We could gird our loins and make up for our own personal shortcomings with the nucular might of our countries!
What say you?
Deal?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are kidding yourself. France and England would not have lifted a hand if the US was not in Europe and the USSR decided to reunify Germany. They would never have dreamed of using nukes in such a situation.
To pretend that the US was only guarding nukes when our armor and air forces stood as the shield protecting Europe for decades is disingenuous.[/quote]
…how do you know this?
…the cold war was [a] perfect [excuse] for both the USA and the USSR. Because of it they could spend trillions on their little toys, emphasise how much better their respectives cultures were compared to the enemy, get a foothold [and influence] in sovereign nations under the guise of protection without ever actually engaging war. The Cuban missile crisis was an unforseen incident, but made sure they wouldn’t be so blatant in the future…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
We could gird our loins and make up for our own personal shortcomings with the nucular might of our countries!
What say you?
I say that the spell-check you claimed to have earlier is MIA.
Let me guess…This one was on purpose, too, right?[/quote]
If you are referring to “nucular”, I wanted to stay within the general mindset of that post.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
[/quote]
Exactly. The main reason the Russians did not role into Germany was because it would have gone nuclear, at the tactical level first. It would have had to, because the Russians would probably have rolled over NATO forces in Europe, just by pure mass. They didn’t invade Western Europe because of the nuclear tripwire.
And MAD has done more to preserve great power peace than anything else in the last fifty years. Which is why it’s crazy that we tore up the ABM and are putting interceptors on Russia’s borders.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
And there’s the catch. You cannot throw nukes around without getting some in return.
Besides, France and England, former power players would look beyond incompetent if a Soviet Army practically transformed one of their biggest neigbours, partners and allies into a radiating wasteland, poisoning huge areas of their own soil for decades at least.
They’d wipe out at least a few small russki cities, if only to show you’d better not mess with them.
Even France could at the very moment preemptively nuke all major russian or american cities. Their atomic subs alone have at least a few dozen warheads.
[/quote]
Yes and no. Before the Reagan buildup nukes were a first line of defense option. After Reagan they were the last line of defense in my opinion. I don’t think the Generals advertised the fact but I believe you would have seen massive armor battles before the first nuke went flying and then only if we were pushed back too far. in hindsight I don’t see that would have happened but who knows.
The intro of the M-1 and A-10 were game changers. We didn’t realize how much until GW1. Nobody did.
I don’t think the US would have used strategic weapons on the USSR. I don’t think but I don’t know for sure. The intro of the Pershing 2 really upset the balance because it was accurate enough to take out Soviet Command and Control centers and decapping the leadership, with virtually no warning. The terminal guidance system could knock the hat off a Russian Generals head I’m told. The Red Army would have been cut off and picked apart by armor and air at that point. I think a big sustained push that drove through Western Germany or split it in half would have launched the Pershings. Glad we never found out.
My two cents. The Russians never changed. They’ll be back. If they want Eastern Europe or some of the “stans” they’ll go after them. The Europeans alone can hurt the Russians but can’t kill them. The US can kill them if they have to. Diplomacy doesn’t work against agression. Never has. Fight them now or fight them later is really the only choice the West has.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
…
[/quote]
No, you would have been rolled up by the USSR. Germany would never have had a chance to build nukes and of they tried that would have been the Russians excuse to invade.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
Exactly. The main reason the Russians did not role into Germany was because it would have gone nuclear, at the tactical level first. It would have had to, because the Russians would probably have rolled over NATO forces in Europe, just by pure mass. They didn’t invade Western Europe because of the nuclear tripwire.
And MAD has done more to preserve great power peace than anything else in the last fifty years. Which is why it’s crazy that we tore up the ABM and are putting interceptors on Russia’s borders.[/quote]
lol, you guys are kidding yourselves. If America would have pulled out of Europe post WW2 Russia would have rolled immediately. Germany would not have had a chance to develop nukes.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. France is one of the most important countries in the history of the world. Few countries, aside from possibly Britain, have as storied a history between Napolean, the French Revolution, the invasions of Russia, the first WWI (Where we did not “rescue” them so much as cooperate.)
You fucking people who call France a coward don’t realize that the French about the same casualties at the Battle of Verdun in 1916 as America did in both WWI and WWII.
Learn some fucking history before you speak out of your ass you stupid fuck.
Second, we have gone what, 70 years without a major, political boundary shaping war. Why? Because of the UN. Is it perfect? No. But going back to the old way of having every country fend for itself leads to massive wars that entangle everyone.
I dare you to find another period in human history like now, where diplomacy is used more than the sword. You warmongering elitist fucks need to realize that we can’t live in the way we did before, and cutting ourselves off will destroy us.[/quote]
oh man … this is tough to respond to …
- France as one of the most important “storied” countries in the history of the world.
I have to assume that you’re trying to DEFEND France with your list of incredibly depressing historical events. The French revolution was an abomination as you must certainly know. The reign of terror comes to mind. Napoleon … yet another in a long line of egomaniacal european tyrants that killed by the million. The invasion of Russia??? Where aforementioned tyrant invades another country hell-bent on conquest and loses a million men in the process? And the “First WWI?” Yes they were part of the first WORLD war. The French and the Germans beat the crap out of each other for a number of years with no conclusion until the US entered with fresh men and energy.
I don’t think you make your case very well. I’d leave the guillotines and the tyrants and the military blunders off your list next time and go straight to The Three Musketeers and the great wine. It’s a more winning argument.
- The Pax UN.
This one is the real whopper. Not only is the UN horribly corrupt and feckless and controlled by tin-horn 3rd world dictatorships … it’s also just plain stupid and very often dangerous. It’s a giant trillion dollar ponzi scheme to keep tens of thousands of bureaucrats in permanent cushy employment. And that’s the good part.
I’ll give the UN this it did just today strongly urge the people of the world in the strongest language to stop eating meat.
But you’re right it wasn’t the US nuclear umbrella and the 300,000 troops and the billions from the Marshall Plan that kept the russians out of western Europe … it was the UN.
And the UN kept the russians out of Czechoslovakia in 68 and afghanistan in 80 … and the iraquis out of kuwait and it stopped the genocide in darfur and it kept cuban troops out of central america and it stopped the chinese from raping tibet and kept the North vietnamese out of south vietnam and the North Koreans out of South Korea and China from invading Taiwan and it prevented the Argentines from invading the Falklands and it strung up Chauchesku in Romania and it solved the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and it kept russian out of Georgia and started the Solidarity movement in Poland and provided billions in money for aids in africa …
Oh wait …
Blithering idiots.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Without american nukes (and GIs), we’d have nukes of our own.
America ensured our atomic gelding by lending us their arsenal, thus removing our need and keeping us a bit tamer.
A soviet aggression would westwards would always include a nuclear tactical barrage.
Ask Hedo.
Exactly. The main reason the Russians did not role into Germany was because it would have gone nuclear, at the tactical level first. It would have had to, because the Russians would probably have rolled over NATO forces in Europe, just by pure mass. They didn’t invade Western Europe because of the nuclear tripwire.
And MAD has done more to preserve great power peace than anything else in the last fifty years. Which is why it’s crazy that we tore up the ABM and are putting interceptors on Russia’s borders.
lol, you guys are kidding yourselves. If America would have pulled out of Europe post WW2 Russia would have rolled immediately. Germany would not have had a chance to develop nukes.[/quote]
Huh? That is exactly what I wrote. NATO forces in Europe = mainly American forces in Europe. The tactical nukes I am talking about were American. Thought that was clear.