Iran; 10 nukes; what changes?

[red_elk]

Wrong. You claimed nuclear weapons deter military attack. Counterexamples were posted. Claim disproved.

Now you are trying to shift main point of discussion.
Ok, let's replace "attack" with "large-scale invasion". Meaning enough scale to threaten full invasion of the country and changing its government.

Now you agree that this claim is correct?
It's still in full contradiction with your statement that nuclear deterrence doesn't work against USA.

Why should we??

You said that you can do pretty much anything you want. I gave examples of what you cannot do. Bomb China.

 

[BasketCase]

It was such a big deal you liberated about a square mile of Cuban beach for around 15 minutes. USA #1.

Wrong. It was such a big deal that we said "dismantle the bases and send the missiles home or we push The Button". And the bases were dismantled, and the missiles were sent home. USA #1.

Now you are trying to shift main point of discussion.
Ok, let's replace "attack" with "large-scale invasion". Meaning enough scale to threaten full invasion of the country and changing its government.

And, I told you: the mindset of the Free World has changed. We (in the Free World) used to do that to each other a lot. We don't any more. And it can't be because of nuclear deterrent, because most of the nations that used to perform full-scale invasions of each other DO NOT HAVE NUKES TODAY.

It's still in full contradiction with your statement that nuclear deterrence doesn't work against USA.

No, it is not. The fact that the U.S. has never tried to conquer and re-flag a nuclear nation doesn't mean anything. It doesn't explain why we don't want to conquer them. Your claim, to be true, requires you to prove nuclear weapons are the specific cause. You left out the "why".

You said that you can do pretty much anything you want. I gave examples of what you cannot do. Bomb China.

Why?? We don't want to. Cuba and the Soviet Union gave us a good reason. Japan gave us a good reason. Nobody else ever has.

 

[red_elk]

We did destroy the USSR and change its government.

Through military invasion and capturing Moscow?
If not, it has nothing to do with Soviet nuclear weapons, because they were designed to prevent military invasion. Isn't it obvious?

No it isn't.

Please explain why you think it doesn't contradict.
And answer, if you agree with modified statement or not.

There's no "cannot" here. We're not going to bomb China because we don't want to.

I think their ability to kill millions of American citizens have something to do with your unwilling. Am I not right? You can bomb Beijing or Moscow just as easy as you bombed Tripoli?

 

[red_elk]

Why?? We don't want to. Cuba and the Soviet Union gave us a good reason. Japan gave us a good reason. Nobody else ever has.

This is either a joke or you are saying that you bombed Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and a handful of other countries without reason...

Ok, let's assume that in your opinion nuclear deterrence works against all countries except USA, and the fact that during whole history, USA attacked only non-nuclear countries is just a coincidence.

The question why USA didn't use such privileged position during Vietnam war or other similar incidents remains unanswered.

 

[BasketCase]

Through military invasion and capturing Moscow?
If not, it has nothing to do with Soviet nuclear weapons, because they were designed to prevent military invasion. Isn't it obvious?

No, it is not. You have to prove that nuclear weapons actually did prevent military invasion. You haven't. The simple fact that "the USSR obtained nuclear weapons" and "the US didn't attack the USSR" happened at the same time doesn't prove that the one actually caused the other.

Please explain why you think it doesn't contradict.

I did. I was still editing the post when you replied to the old version. Nuclear weapons are not what's deterring modern-day free nations from invading and conquering each other, because most such nations do not have and never had nukes.

I think their ability to kill millions of American citizens have something to do with your unwilling. Am I not right?

You are not right. China has no such ability. They have tested a nuke but have no capability to deliver it. They don't have the ability to kill millions of Americans. And by the time they do, the U.S. will have SDI. Then we'll build the starship to Alpha Centauri and win the game.

This is either a joke or you are saying that you bombed Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya and a handful of other countries without reason...

Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Japan are the only nations who ever gave the U.S. a good reason to threaten nuclear launches. Those other nations you listed? We did have good reasons for using conventional weapons on them.

When you asked me to "bomb China", the fact is we don't have any reason to bomb them right now, conventionally or nuclearly.

Ok, let's assume that in your opinion nuclear deterrence works against all countries except USA, and the fact that during whole history, USA attacked only non-nuclear countries is just a coincidence.

The question why USA didn't use such privileged position during Vietnam war or other similar incidents remains unanswered.

I did answer that. The U.S. only used its "privileged position" when we spotted a bunch of nuclear missile bases in Cuba and saw a direct nuclear threat to the United States. Vietnam did no such thing.

 

[red_elk]

I did answer that. The U.S. only used its "privileged position" when we spotted a bunch of nuclear missile bases in Cuba and saw a direct nuclear threat to the United States. Vietnam did no such thing.

You lost war, about 60,000 of troops and lots of expensive aircraft in Vietnam. Why didn't you threaten USSR with your nuclear weapons to stop supporting Vietnam, if it was so simple?
Why did you pull out your troops and advisors from Georgia in 2008, just before war?
What happened to your iron balls?

 

[BasketCase]

You lost war, about 60,000 of troops and lots of expensive aircraft in Vietnam. Why didn't you threaten USSR with your nuclear weapons

Because the USSR wasn't building nuclear missile bases in North Vietnam aimed at the United States.

Why did you pull out your troops and advisors from Georgia in 2008, just before war?

Because neither side there was aiming nuclear missiles at the United States.

All possible examples you can possibly come up with are going to fall far, far short of what the USSR tried to pull in Cuba.

 

[red_elk]

Because the USSR wasn't building nuclear missile bases in North Vietnam aimed at the United States.

I'm simply asking why USA was willing to sacrifice thousands of soldiers, because of Soviet help to Vietnam, if it could threaten USSR to stop that aid?
Or you could not do whatever you want?

 

[BasketCase]

The answer is in the quote section of your own post.

 

[red_elk]

The answer is in the quote section of your own post.

It means something was preventing you to threaten nuclear war over non-nuclear issues, even in a situation when you were losing war and international reputation. Missiles in North Vietnam would be much less threat of US security than ICBMs on Russian/Soviet territory, aimed at you, yet you was unable to remove that threat too.

Did you read something about Cold War balance of powers and Mutually Assured Destruction concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction