If Stalin had had a nuclear shield, the US would not have responded to the attack on South Korea.
Carl.. there's a big difference to confronting Stalin's "proxy states", and taking on the USSR itself.
That's the analogy you need to take away from this discussion. Once Iraq possesses nuclear weapons, Saddam will likely waste little time developing "proxy states" of his own to wage his regional insurgencies so that these weakened states eventually fall under his control.
And neither we, nor the Israelis, will do anything, lest we find ourselves receiving a nuclear or biological "calling card" from Uncle Saddam. We'll be forced to fight his proxies, but not the source of the trouble.. Saddam Hussein.
None of these were obtained through the use of nuclear weapons. Not a single country.
Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my comments? I stated that once Stalin possessed nuclear weapons, he was able to effectively tell the US "up yours, I'm not going to grant self-determination to any of the countries we occupied. And if you want to fight me over it, you right massive retaliation."
IOW, Stalin was able to CONSOLIDATE, AND MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER those nations he occupied on the way to Berlin, because he could hide behind a nuclear shield and nullify the US monopoly on nuclear weapons.
And the USSR held those nations in terror and economic ruin for 40+ years longer. And now bringing them back into the western economic fold has become a tremendous burden on Europe.
All because we failed to "face down" Stalin with an iron backbone and force him to retreat to pre-WWII borders.
40-50 years of terror, devastated lives and economies, and trillions of wasted dollars that could have been spent on things benefiting humanity.
Hawk |
