[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Well, ruthlessly obliterating them would have been one option. Don't say there wasn't at least one thing you could do.

Some members of the American and British leadership strongly advocated rearming the Germans once they surrendered and the government fell and turning them loose on the Soviets with American troops and assets to either destroy Stalin and his regime or push the Soviets back past their original borders. The Nuke option was non existent at the time because of the expense in terms of exotic materials and bomb materials, and the fairly inefficient manner that the American's were making these bombs, their stockpile of fissionable materials was close to exhausted.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Truthfully, 1) the American public was tired of war and no one could see extent of the future antagonism between capitalism and communism and 2) America didn't have enough nuclear bombs to be thorough enough - a threat is no threat unless you can carry it through.

America was tired of the war and deeply split by the time it ended, mainly because some questioned the aliies unconditional surrender policy when it came to dealing with the Axis powers. However there was already a perception that the next enemy was the Soviet Union and Communism especially with Churchill stiring that pot heavily. Most American's realized that the Soviets were going to be a problem.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I've actually argued before that nuclear weapons rendered the world a safer place, that the big powers, for the first time in history, no longer dared going to war directly, instead relying on proxy wars like Vietnam and Latin America.

MAD for lack of a better term did work. It was a horrible concept but it worked. I was watching the excellent Doctor Strangelove the other night and going back and forth to my tablet looking up the close calls that almost lead to end of civilization and there were a lot of them that were intentional and accidental and just plain fortunate (radio failure in the Cuban Missile Crisis). At the end of the day the biggest threat to mankind was the Ballistic Missile Defense on both sides combined with the reduction of Nuclear Arms under the various treaties that could lead to a nuclear war becoming winnable.

The world today, in fact, has never been a safer place, with the fewest conflicts in history on a relative basis. A lot of that because the major players don't dare war with each other.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Through the 70's and 80's, I never worried about nuclear war. There's no upside to it for either party.

I think you and I are the same age or in that area, so we weren't around in the shakey late 50's and 60's where people were building fallout shelters and students practices taking shelter. In my time in the military we weren't necessarily frightened of the Bear even through we always wargamed against the nation of Redistan. By that point the Russians while still formidable had lost their reputation as 10 foot tall unbeatable Soviet New Men, a title they had earned against Germany and lost in Afghanistan. We didn't have the same fear of thousands of Soviet Tanks rushing through the Fulda Gap due to a mis-understanding, while thousands of Soviet long range bombers ranged over their enemies and the Soviet Submarine threat starved us to death.

By the point when you could start to see the crumble the worry was always, would they go quietly into the night, or in one last desperate flex of muscle would they throw all their cards on the table?

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It really is crazy little unpredictable a-hole countries like Iran or NK that you should worry about. Is it really a good idea to let them arm themselves or should you go a lot tough on them? Real tough.

Cowperson

Those -hole countries are the great destabilizers in their regions, they're unpredictable, they are exporting either technology or in the case of Iran terrorists or aid and comfort to those terrorists.

I don't fear North Korea as much because despite their bluster at the end of the day that government has always shown itself to be concerned about self preservation of power and because of that there's a rationality to their irrational manner.

Iran is a different kettle of fish to me because of the theological aspect and the fact that they are run by a complete banana head and that they work so closely with terrorist groups, and their main enemy transcends politics and involves god. While I don't think that Iran would launch a missile at Israel, the likely scenario is to either provide terrorists with the technology or the terrorists "Steal"materials or something else from Iran and use it on Israel which leaves Iran in the clear.

Goofy I know but possible.