Why the world still needs nuclear weapons

[gurglesletch]

mrstickball said:

gurglesletch said:

mrstickball said:

I didn't say better, they had more. To the tune of 2:1 for tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_formations_during_the_Cold_War#Warsaw_Pact

Even if the NATO tanks were better, we never had the kind of strength the soviets & warsaw pact did. If it wasn't for the nuclear deterrent, a war would of been likely.

Maybe the size 18 font will help. And besides having more is not necessarily a guaranteed victory if you look into military history like i do.

I'm not saying that such things would have resulted in a Soviet victory. However, the Soviets clearly had an advantage in the manpower and equipment department. That would allow them a higher probability of winning the initial strike of a war, which would correlate to a higher probability of a declaration of war.

However, if you'd like to elaborate on why Soviet forces and military doctrine would not be able to overcome initial NATO defenses, I'd love to hear it.

well its kind of hard for the Ruskies to take over the UK if they are an island nation and they along with the US had a much more powerful/superior Navy which would have repelled the advance of the Soviets.