I would have thought that Iran would have striked against Israel and thus doomed itself to US-NATO-Israel invasion long before it had the technological capabilities to launch a strike against the UK.

The USA's involvement in the protection of Europe probably stems from the same place as why it's so involved in the Middle-East: commitments made during the Cold War to prevent the Soviets increasing their power in these places, and now it's very hard to pull out of these commitments: for alienating its biggest allies in Europe, and for resources and other beneficiaries (such as possibility of open markets, democratisation, etc) in the Middle-East.

With each passing day, the likelihood of some kind of EU-Russian war decreases. The two groups need each other more and more as time goes by - the EU accounts for more than half of Russia's trade.

The worst war crime the allies commited was letting Woodrow Wilson lead the peace conference at Paris in 1919.(together with 3 other useless tools)

You would think, yet it seems that oddly instead of short or long range missles they are working mostly on "europe" reaching missles.

Possibly hoping it could be used to blackmail the EU out of a conflict?

Either way, I'm not even sure Nuclear weapons are needed anymore... in general.  I may be naive but I look at it this way... It's not WW2 anymore.

The global economy is too big and too important to upset by a giant war between superpowers.

I mean you think the economic downturn was bad!  What about the aferaffects of a giant war between superpowers?

I think the Superpowers could pretty much do whatever they want to smaller countries without it ever leading to anything.

Ironically making the smaller countries the only ones who really do need them.

Well except maybe India V Pakistan.

I think it's unfair to blame Woodrow Wilson.  I mean he was the one argueing for restraint afterall with his 14 points..  It was however hilariously short sited that his big push, the League of Nations was something he didn't bother to check with congress first.

Had Wilson had his way WW2 may have never happened.  It's just he was in a poor bargaining position.  Afterall the USA wasn't invaded and only entered the war later... and the US while helpful wasn't really instrumental in the war... the US was just there because of it's newfound power.

Meh. I can NEVER support the intentional targeting of civilians, and that's the whole point of nuclear weapons.

He had to change his 14 points a lot because of his League of Nations. That's the whole problem. The League didn't work anyway, so it was all in vain. He was the wrong guy to lead such a Conference. 

The treaty was either too severe for Germany or too lenient. It was too severe to conciliate and not severe enough to destroy. The allies imposed upon the German republic about the same terms that they might have imposed upon the German empire. They innocently(and foolishly) played the game of Ludendorff and the German reactionaries.  It was the Social Democrats and liberals who bore the "shame" of Versailles. Not the German army. Hence why Hitler thought Germany wasn't defeated during the first world war. Hence why the main reason for world war 2 is the treaty of Versailles.

Eventually it was the complaint of Germans in the Sudetenland that they were an oppressed minority, together with the irredentist demand of Germany to join these outlying Germans to the Reich, that produced the Munich crisis preceding world war 2.  

Even a 5 year old could tell you back then that you put 1 nationality under 1 nation. God, it caused world war 1(the Balkan wars) and they were stupid enough to repeat the same mistake. 

Ps: USA joining the allies was a decisive factor during the war. The United States navy supplied enough additional force to the Allies to make conveying and other antisubmarine measures highly effective. The submarine was no more then a nuisance by the end of 1917. The land army of the USA might have only fought for 4 months, but it was effective as well. The Germans were overwhelmed in the Argonne by the Americans. The Germans could have won the war if it wasn't for the US. They were starving Great Britain to death with their submarines and with Russia gone from the battlefield they could focus all their troops on the Western Front. Unlike world war 2 the war wasn't decided after 2-3 years.

I've read that the USA military has around 800 overseas bases. Which is more bases then any country has domestically let alone outside of their country. The winding back of the US empire would save you guys rediculous amounts of money and if done right not neccesarily drastically reduce your projection capabilities. I'm sure plenty of those overseas bases aren't neccesary for that.

Even without the LoN I don't see Versailles turning out that different.

Everyone elses first instinct was to make Germany bleed.

I normally couldn't but being bothered by the second nuclear bomb in highschool I researched it and found that every other option was actually worse...

and would kill more citizens indirectly.

I can't reconcile killing more citizens indirectly just so I can say I didn't target any citizens directly.

I'm for nuclear weapons. Look how effective they are. The US bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and about a week later Japan surrenders. Imagine if they hadn't dropped the bombs the fighting could have gone on for a couple more years and costed thousands of American lives.

Yeah I know most, if not all, of the casualties of the bombs were civilians, but the amount of lives saved by ending the war so quickly could have been worth it.