Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Carl.. there's a big difference to confronting Stalin's "proxy states", and taking on the USSR itself."
You've already admitted that the US did zilch, nada, zero, nothing to rescue Eastern Europe between 1945 and when the Russians got the bomb. The facts are that the US didn't confront Stalin's "proxy states" when Stalin didn't have the bomb, but, in fact, did confront the USSR's proxy states (i.e. North Vietnam, North Korea, Afghanistan, etc.) long after the USSR did get the bomb. This implies that your concept of "nuclear shields" is incompatible with the historical facts.
Now I agree that the possession of nuclear weapons did render the Soviet Union immune from US attack. But immunity from attack is not what we are arguing about with regards to Iraq. I agree that if Iraq did (by some incredible miracle) possess a few thousand ICBMs that fact would make them immune from US attack. In fact, I've repeatedly stated on this thread that the reason that the 3rd world is working hard to obtain nuclear weapons is to make themselves immune from US (or other country's) attack.
What we are arguing about (at least in this sequence) with regards to Iraq is whether or not the possession of "WMD"s would provide Iraq with a "nuclear shield" that would allow them to take over the region. In this, I disagree, and the historical facts with the Soviet Union are in complete agreement with my position.
Face it.
History proves that nukes are useless, as far as taking over other countries.
I know that most people don't understand why this would be. Maybe I should try to explain the military and psychological facts again.
Humans are very tough on the defense. They are considerably weaker on the offense. This is because humans are territorial, and tend to defend their territory with great strength. Some humans are also aggressive, but all humans are territorial. This fact makes every country on this planet more strong in the defense than it is in the attack. In order for one country to overwhelm another, it has to have massive military superiority. Without that massive superiority (think Germany vs Poland), the fighting will result in a stalemate, as in the Iran / Iraq war. This is because humans, like mother bears, are very territorial. If this instinct isn't obvious to you, then think what you would do with an intruder in your house, or go rent the movie "Red Dawn", and see what it does to your emotional state.
This is why a shitty little country like Vietnam or Afghanistan can kick out a super power like the United States or the USSR. Human societies are willing to take a hell of a lot more casualties in the defense than they are willing to take in the offense.
Re: "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."
(a) Funny that the locals don't seem to be very worried.
(b) Laughable that you can compare Iraq to the Soviet Union. Here's a comparison between Iraq and Russia, which is just a part of the former Soviet Union:
Area (sq km) Population Per cap GDP Economy
------------ ----------- ----------- --------
Iraq 437,072 23,331,985 $2,500 $ 57
Russia 17,075,200 145,470,197 $7,700 $1,120
US 9,629,091 278,058,881 $36,200 $9,963
In other words, you're making a mountain out of what can only be accurately described as a molehill.
(c) The Soviet Union never even once used nuclear weapons, or nuclear blackmail in order to take over a proxy country. Not once, not ever. What they used were standard old conventional weapons, AK-47s, not nukes. This is a simple fact that is verifiable by every single combat veteran this country who has ever come back from combat against the Communists in a proxy nation. The communists never once, not even a single time, exploded a nuclear weapon in anger. Not once, even though they had them for 40 years. Not even once.
-- Carl
P.S. Figures are CIA, and are more or less for 2000. Economy figures are in billions of dollars per year. While the figures for the Soviet Union may be smaller than the current figures for Russia, the United States was considerably smaller back then as well. |
