Nukes haven't kept the Americans at bay at all. NK has only had nukes since 2005 or so. They didn't have any previously and the US still didn't try to invade them.
India and Pakistan both possess nuclear weapons and yet that didn't stop them from going to war with each other.
Still waiting on your answer. You still have yet to tell me what stops the Soviets from invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons.Its is a bit more complicated then a strategy video game.
Agreed
I also agree with this statement. Peace or at least the very limited small conflicts are by no means bad things when comparing the earlier total war that Europe frequently found itself in. On the contrary it is good to have peace. However it does mean that many in Europe have become complacent regarding military spending. It is clear every time I speak to another German that, that it is not just a political view but also a cultural problem. That view however is not a global one. In the US and elsewhere they do not necessarily think that way. To respond again to your' earlier post, this is where the misalignment of views seems to be sourced. You mentioned the strangee American view of NATO. It is easy to conclude as an American, that the disproportionally high military spending in the US might be necessary to make up for the lack of spending by other members. Though I will admit that this is only partially true and the reasons behind the US' high spending is much more complex.
A few clashes here and there isn't real war.
Even a small nuclear arsenal is the reason not to. Also US hasn't used nukes in Korea for fear of Soviet and Chinese retaliation, even though there was not article 9 between those countries.Still waiting on your answer. You still have yet to tell me what stops the Soviets from invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons.
To put it simply the fact that Western Europe wasn't invaded was due to w him of circumstances, and not because of NATO magic abilities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War
Wasn't just a few clashes.
There was never a reason to use nuclear weapons in Korea. The only time it was considered was when MacArthur wanted to use nukes on Chinese bases. Chinese would have no way of retaliating as they didn't have any nuclear weapons at that time.Even a small nuclear arsenal is the reason not to. Also US hasn't used nukes in Korea for fear of Soviet and Chinese retaliation,
You are still avoiding my question. What stops the Soviets from invading countries in Western Europe that do not have nuclear weapons?To put it simply the fact that Western Europe wasn't invaded was due to w him of circumstances, and not because of NATO magic abilities.
Border clashes isn't really comparable to Soviets liberating Western Europe all the way to UK.
But they didn't want to draw the Soviets in, who at the time, against didn't really have an article 9 with China.
There was never a reason to use nuclear weapons in Korea. The only time it was considered was when MacArthur wanted to use nukes on Chinese bases. Chinese would have no way of retaliating as they didn't have any nuclear weapons at that time.
Threat of drawing in other countries and the fact that Soviet economy was bad because of socialism.You are still avoiding my question. What stops the Soviets from invading countries in Western Europe that do not have nuclear weapons?
So? A war's a war. Just because its not as big in scope as WW2 doesn't mean its not a war.
Soviets were already drawn in. Hell they piloted Mig-15s and fought against US pilots. Harry Truman never saw a need to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War.But they didn't want to draw the Soviets in, who at the time, against didn't really have an article 9 with China.
How are they going to draw in other countries? There's no NATO remember? And stop with the economy nonsense. The Soviets were able to invade Afghanistan while still keeping thousands of soldiers stationed in Europe. Their economy will not prevent them from going to war.Threat of drawing in other countries and the fact that Soviet economy was bad because of socialism.
The point is that your analogy doesn't make sense. They never ended up invading each other.
US was getting desperate and considered using nukes.Soviets were already drawn in. Hell they piloted Mig-15s and fought against US pilots. Harry Truman never saw a need to use nuclear weapons in the Korean War.
Invading Afghanistan wasn't really as difficult, even with US-Saudis backing jihadists, as invading whole Western Europe with much more advanced armies. And well the fact that USSR had bad ineffective socialist economy.How are they going to draw in other countries? There's no NATO remember? And stop with the economy nonsense. The Soviets were able to invade Afghanistan while still keeping thousands of soldiers stationed in Europe. Their economy will not prevent them from going to war.
Did you read it at all? Pakistan invaded Indian territory and India took it back. An invasion did take place. Its a war.
According to who? You have proof Harry Truman wanted to use nukes in Korea? I'm waiting for it.US was getting desperate and considered using nukes.
An insurgency is not the same as a conventional war. Western European Armies had absolutely no chance in a conventional war. They had no where near the equipment, tanks, aircraft, navy, or manpower to match the Soviets and Warsaw Pact. Even with NATO the Soviets still had the advantage. And you again ignored my question. How are the Soviets going to draw in more countries in a war? No NATO means no alliance.Invading Afghanistan wasn't really as difficult, even with US-Saudis backing jihadists, as invading whole Western Europe with much more advanced armies.
Still didn't stop them in Afghanistan.And well the fact that USSR had bad ineffective socialist economy.
The whole who wold win the cold war thing is more for the history section. However there is a valid argument that the existence of NATO meant that an attempt by the soviets to expand by force would of been too costly in blood and treasure to be worth the attempt.
Recent events have shown the Russians have little problems with expansion by force against states isolated and without allies.
Minor border clash resulting with a stalemate.
https://www.airspacemag.com/military...ear-180955324/According to who? You have proof Harry Truman wanted to use nukes in Korea? I'm waiting for it.
Again, it would require waaaayy more resources to invade Europe. Something inefficient socialist economy could not produce on its own. If USSR wasn't USSR but modern Russian Empire with capitalist economy, you'd have a point. So I guess NATO would be useful - in alternative history scenario. But in reality it wasn't.An insurgency is not the same as a conventional war. Western European Armies had absolutely no chance in a conventional war. They had no where near the equipment, tanks, aircraft, navy, or manpower to match the Soviets and Warsaw Pact. Even with NATO the Soviets still had the advantage. And you again ignored my question. How are the Soviets going to draw in more countries in a war? No NATO means no alliance.
Are you seriously comparing Afghanistan to a dozen or so of European states? The scale, population, quality of opposing force...Still didn't stop them in Afghanistan.
If Germans decided to join Warsaw Pact/USSR via elections, then it would have been a different story.
A war is a war.
No where in that source does it say Harry Truman advocated for the use of nuclear weapons. It even points out that Truman fired MacArthur over their differing views regarding the use of nukes since MacArthur wanted to nuke Chinese bases.
And your evidence for this is based on what again?Again, it would require waaaayy more resources to invade Europe. Something inefficient socialist economy could not produce on its own.
USSR's economy was more than enough to start a war. The Soviets were able to stay in Afghanistan for 10 years along with keeping forces in Europe. The idea they couldn't somehow go to war with a European country but could go to war in Afghanistan for 10 years is ridiculous.If USSR wasn't USSR but modern Russian Empire with capitalist economy, you'd have a point. So I guess NATO would be useful - in alternative history scenario. But in reality it wasn't.
Are you seriously comparing Afghanistan to a dozen or so of European states? The scale, population, quality of opposing force...
It is beyond question that NATO dissuaded the Soviet Union from expanding - or attempting to expand - its sphere of influence over western Europe militarily. Arguing about a hypothetical past where the US paid no attention to the defense interests of its democratic partners (and by extension, itself) is a waste of time.
Interesting take on Macron’s NATO criticism vis a vis the most easily manipulated POTUS in modern history. Trump’s characteristic susceptibility to basic flattery, and accordingly reflexive reaction to any and all criticism, is on full display yet again:
LONDON — President Trump on Tuesday slammed as “very, very nasty” and “very disrespectful” recent comments by his French counterpart about the diminished state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance.
Referring to comments President Emmanuel Macron made last month in an interview with the Economist magazine — in which Macron described the “brain death” of NATO resulting from America’s failure to consult with its allies — Trump attacked Macron on the first day of the NATO 70th-anniversary summit in London, calling the comments “very insulting.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...948_story.htmlAmusingly, what seems to have worked instead is Emmanuel Macron’s completely different ploy. The French president gave an interview last month decrying the “brain death” of NATO, which he said had failed to account for America’s shrinking commitment under Trump.
Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” openly questioned whether the U.S. would come to the defense of allies under attack (the very foundation of the alliance), and privately told aides on several occasions last year he wants to withdraw from the alliance. But the notion that somebody else would question NATO, and blame its demise on Trump, has enraged him.
And now Trump is lashing out at Macron. “NATO serves a great purpose,” he declared today. “And I hear that President Macron said NATO is ‘brain dead.’ I think that’s very insulting to a lot of different forces … When you make a statement like that, that is a very, very nasty statement to 28 — including them — 28 countries.”
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...orse-nato.html
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII