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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (116669)	10/12/2003 8:57:45 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<If you assume nobody ever attacks anybody, you don't even need an ARMY!> No, I don't make that assumption, and I do recognise the need for an army (strictly for defensive purposes). I can't control what the Opposition thinks. I can: 1) be strong enough to deter any aggression by them, and 2) leave them alone in peace, not giving them any good reasons to hate me. The Cold War became hot only in areas trivial to the interests of both sides. In their core areas, their industrialized heartland, both sides adopted a defensive posture, and left the other side alone. I agree, that the U.S. would have used nuclear weapons, if the Red Army had reached the Rhine. Just as the Soviets would have used nukes if the U.S. Army had reached Warsaw. The USSR was defeated in Afghanistan, and the U.S. was defeated in Vietnam, and neither side used nukes. During the Cold War, the U.S. considered using nuclear weapons on numerous occasions. Each time, we held off, even when the result was a serious conventional military defeat (N. Korea 1950, when a million Chinese soldiers crossed the Yalu). We did this, even when we had a monopoly on nuclear weapons (1945-1949), allowing the Soviets to consolidate power in E. Europe, and allowing Mao to conquer China. We didn't use nuclear weapons in Cuba or Vietnam, even when we lost there. Based on our leader's statements and actions, we would only have used nuclear weapons if faced with a disastrous defeat in the homeland of one of our core allies (W. Europe, Japan). We would not have used nuclear weapons, even in defeat, in Korea, Taiwan, Israel, or anywhere in the 3d world. In effect, the combination of limiting hot wars to non-core areas, and only being willing to use nukes in defense of core areas, amounted to a No First Use policy during the Cold War, by both the U.S. and USSR. We now have a new, and far more dangerous, world. Neither the U.S. (head of the Crusader Alliance), nor the Jihadists are status-quo powers. The U.S. reaches into the Muslim heartland, occupying their homelands. The Islamists strike back at us, anywhere they can, anyway they can. Both sides attack places the other side is willing to defend at all costs (Jerusalem, New York, Mecca). This is inherently unstable, unlike the Cold War.