By nobody I meant leaders of influencial countries, powerful enough to start aggression against such countries as Iran, DPRK or Israel. There is no 100% guarantee of course, but usually leaders are more or less sane people. That's how MAD works.
Hope you are wrong.
Even Hitler wouldn't attack Israel if he knew that one hour after his attack Germany will cease to exist.
Seeing as how the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, that's obviously not true.
That holds true for a bunch of other nations in Europe as well--and none of them had nuclear weapons. In addition to beating up on Russia, various nations in Europe also had a long history of beating up on each other. In the second half of that century, that stopped. At least, in Europe.
That's true of Russia's civilian nuclear program.
You don't have a slightest idea about state of Russian army today.
Its nuclear potential is arguably the best in the world, and certainly comparable to the American one.
Oh, yeah. I stand corrected.
Exactly. The United States looked Russia in the eye and said "go ahead, push The Button, I dare you" and Russia blinked. Russia's nuclear deterrent failed. The strategic equation is kind of assymetrical in that way; U.S. nuclear deterrent does work on most external threats, but foreign nuclear deterrence against the U.S., surprisingly, does not.
If its not true, please show me when and how USSR was invaded and suffered military defeat, after 1949. Nukes are not supposed to protect the country from any other threats, except military ones.
USSR was dismantled by voluntary decision of Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, nobody forced them to do it. Russia became legal successor of the USSR, retain independence and ability to incinerate whole US territory in a matter of minutes. If it's victory for the US, it is kind of ... incomplete
Any major war in Europe in second half of XX century would be a conflict between NATO and Warsaw pact. It didn't happen exactly because it would turn to global nuclear war.
Did you see my link?I like this measurement contestExactly. The United States looked Russia in the eye and said "go ahead, push The Button, I dare you" and Russia blinked. Russia's nuclear deterrent failed. The strategic equation is kind of assymetrical in that way; U.S. nuclear deterrent does work on most external threats, but foreign nuclear deterrence against the U.S., surprisingly, does not.
1989-1991. The revolutions that disintegrated the Soviet Union did include shooting. Romania being a notable example.
Nuclear weapons do not protect against military attack by the United States.
World history says the opposite. Before World War II, the various nations of Europe fought each other all the time. England vs. Spain, England vs. France, France vs. Spain. Germany in the Thirty Years' War. And lots of others.
Yeah.....I don't appreciate that first bit. I think we're done.
Is this suppose to be a proof that nuclear weapons don't protect the country from military invasion?
Romania has never been a part of the USSR. Get some basic history classes.
History shows that they do. I asked you for counterexamples, which you failed to provide.
The world is indeed changed and wars between European states are now much less likely for many reasons. For example because of integration in EU and NATO. But not because of "shock and horror of WW2" - horrors of previous wars never prevented new wars from happening. Anyway, for Russia it doesn't change the situation as much as for EU states - it is not part of EU, and NATO was anti-Russian (or anti-Soviet, which is the same) sinse its creation. Yes, Europe is less aggressive for the last 50 years, but Russia borders with non-European countries as well. And we have the US, which is why we retain 2000+ warheads.
Then don't write nonsense.
Not sure about that. If I remember correctly, the fact that the US removed those missiles from Turkey wasn't disclosed for pretty long time after Cuban crisis - may be that's the reason why it was viewed as humiliation for Khruschev.
Took the words right outta my mouth.
I provided two examples. Cuba and Pakistan.
For me this is not true. I usually avoid conversation with people who write outright nonsense. In this case I called nonsense one your particular statement - that Russian nuclear military program is in much worse condition than civilian one, and asked where did you get that information.
Neither one was a victim of US aggression.
The daily paper.
YES, they both were. Bay of Pigs and the Beatdown on Osama bin Laden. Though the Bay of Pigs is really small potatoes compared to the fact that the U.S. was ready to go nuclear if the missiles weren't pulled out of Cuba. You can't get much bigger than nuclear aggression without upgrading to black hole projectors and spacetime disruption cannons (we're still working on those).
Well, I would expect you to do it, if you don't agree with me. I even gave one link (to the site of Federation of American Scientists
) without you asking. But ok, if you don't want to discuss it anymore, let's forget about it.Look, you are not addressing my point. The point is that any country possessing enough nuclear potential to hit aggressors mainland with at least several warheads is almost 100% safe from attack of this aggressor.
Simple question: Why the US didn't demand USSR to stop providing Vietnam with SAMs which were shooting down American planes? To stop helping North Korea in Korean war? To dismantle Warsaw Pact? It was so easy if deterrence works one way only - threaten to "go nuclear" and USSR will fold.
Yeah, it's a good thing that that India and Pakistan were too afraid of each other's nukes to go to war in 1999.
Good point, it doesn't always prevent border clashes, unfortunately.
Thank you. The Kargil war solves my disagreement with Red Elk rather nicely.
And Dachs and I disproved your point with counterexamples. Your point is disproven. The end.
No idea. But you asked the wrong question. The correct question is: what would the USSR have done if the United States had threatened to go nuclear? You might be better-qualified than most to answer that (you've hinted that you are/were Russian, but I make no assumptions about where CFC-ers live in the real world).
None of those. It's another reason entirely. It's because everybody else on the planet is even more scared of wars involving America than America's own citizens are. We can do pretty much what we want, because nobody else on the planet is willing to push The Button. Bad poker analogy: when you know your opponents don't have the nerve to call a bluff, the table is yours.
Well, if you want to consider these conflicts as wars, it proves the point which is directly opposite of yours.
)Depends over what. If you demanded to stop helping Vietnam during war, it would be refused. I'm sure you didn't enjoy losing that war against 3-rd world state and if all what was required to prevent Soviet help to them, was threatening USSR with nuclear war, you would do this immediately.
Try to throw a single bomb on Chinese city. Or Russian. Or invade Belorussia.
Wrong. You claimed nuclear weapons deter military attack. Counterexamples were posted. Claim disproved.
Why should we?? None of those knuckleheads ever did anything to us that warrants a nuclear threat. Cuba and the Soviet Union did--but only once. Soviet missiles on Cuban soil would have been a direct military threat to the entire United States. That was a big deal.
