Yes it is. The world is a very dangerous place. To think you can just make everything equal, and then the world will be a loving place, is just...

To ignore everything history has ever taught you. Obama has the level of arrogance to think that the only reason it hasn't worked yet, is because he hasn't tried it.

tru dat.

on the whole, this world is f.d up pretty bad.

i hate the fact that nuclear bombs even exist, but as long as nobody goes making any more or actually using them, i think we'll be fine... fingers crossed, boys!

It's a trick. It's like that time I told that guy that I wouldn't use fireballs in Street Fighter 2 if he didn't use fireballs in street fighter 2. Then, when I was sure he wouldn't use fireballs, I used my fireball. What I'm trying to say is "HA-DOKEN"!!

To be fair, America didn't lose those war - the politicians did.

American wars are usually PR battles, not strategic ones. In Vietnam, we lost because we had a president that (litterally) got together with staff members to pick out which targets to strike. When you put a war in the hands of the president, staff, and such and not in the hands of generals, tacticians and the soldiers, you will lose the war. By comparison, when Nixon was elected, and initiated Linebacker 2, we crippled Vietnam in a matter of months, and almost won the war (had popular opinion not of been soured by then, Vietnam would be Democratic).

Afghanistan is the same way - we don't want to risk any civilian lives, so our targets are strategically limited. Think about the great wars - WW1, WW2 - do you think FDR or Churchill forced our military to limit strikes to areas that had no civilians?

But as you said, nukes have been very great at deterring forces. Had we not of developed the bomb, Europe may of been in shambles again, since the Soviets had much larger/better ground forces in Europe during the cold war.

Nukes are a needed evil. The destruction of millions of people in the blink of an eye is a horrendous idea. But so is the thought of conventional wars between superpowers that fear no decicive war-ending weapon.

Look at WW2 - had it not of been for our usage of nukes on Japan, the outcome would of likely been worse - much worse. An invasion of Japan would have rendered Japan even weaker economically, with millions more dead Japanese and Americans in the war - not to mention shifting geopolitical problems which may have caused even more issues after we'd beaten the Japanese conventionally.

The Soviet forces were not better than US equipment.

I think it's pretty silly to disable nuclear weapons when the U.S. spent so much time and money building them in the first place. Why even get rid of them at all? It's a waste. Even if the U.S. gets rid of half its nukes, it will still have enough to bomb every country in the world about 10 times over. So why bother? Just keep them and don't use them.

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.