Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (3809)	1/29/2001 4:00:28 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 82486

Using your example of Hungary: would the US have actually launched a nuclear strike to defend Hungary, even with a BMD system in place? Let's change that question around: Would a Soviet Premier, after receiving a strong warning from the US that direct Soviet military intervention in Hungary or Czechoslovakia was "unacceptable" to the US and "risked the gravest consequences" have gone ahead and told the tanks to roll? Knowing that , while some of his bombers and missles would get through, most would not, but most American nukes would? I doubt it. Remember, even without that shield, US military policy envisioned the use of tactical nukes in the defense of Western Europe. Without them, the only alternative was to go home; we were too heavily outnumbered. Which is why the intelligent policy for the Soviets to adopt would have been to keep the direct threat level well below a level that would warrant a nuclear strike, and concentrate on nibbling away at our sphere of influence in the developing world, an area in which nuclear forces had no real relevance. This is basically what was actually done by both sides; MAD made the use of nukes unlikely. The art of war by proxy had two parts: first, choosing a proxy that could win, second, making sure that proxy wasn't going to be a bigger pain in the ass than the government it replaced. In Afghanistan we managed the first objective, but did less well on the second. Well, yes, sometimes there were side effects. :-) In general, though, the Soviets were quite adept at maneuvering us into taking the sides of the decaying colonial powers and the corrupt and incompetent local autocrats, and we were all to willing to pick up those loosing hands It doesn't appear to me that the Soviets HAD to do any maneuvering because "we were all to willing to pick up those loosing hands".