4 ms·
All the US intervention are based on pure self interest, nothing to do with policing the world. If anything most of the world would have been better off without
by mijamo 8y ago
All the US intervention are based on pure self interest, nothing to do with policing the world. If anything most of the world would have been better off without US interventions, particularly latin america and middle east!
Now let's say you don't have conventional weapons.
China invades all South East Asia progressively. Would you nuke them? Russia invades Eastern Europe. Would you nuke them? If yes why hasn't the US nuked Russia yet?
Then all your allies suddenly switch side after being overthrown by dictators who are in favor of your enemies. Would you nuke them?
Another one: you are terrorists associations preparing attacks against you in camps all across middle east. Who do you nuke to defend yourself?
Conventional weapons are actually the only useful tools nowadays, because war is much more sneaky than it used to be, and it is much more about fighting for influence than really invading countries or defending you territory.
- eloff 8y agoBasically no to all of the above. One can question the wisdom of not standing up to aggressive nation states attacking and conquering other states - and doing nothing. Let's say the US had invented the bomb earlier and was using this strategy during the rise of Nazi Germany. Basically the plan would be to leave Japan, Russia, Germany, Italy unchecked as they conquered state after state until the whole rest of the world fell under horrifying authoritarian rule. Until one eventually comes for the US and both commit suicide. It seems a much worse scenario than the already horrifying one we had. On the other hand let's say all had the bomb but are reluctant to use it. The nation's fight it out with conventional weaponry until the axis powers, realizing they have lost and with invasion in progress finally feel they have no other choice and commit mutually assured destruction. I think it would be hard to claim that wouldn't have happened given the temperament of some of their leaders. Perhaps in this case the allies would have showed restraint and not invaded to end the war - perhaps they would have been willing to negotiate terms. I think basically my idea is a terrible one. But I also think the world war II scenario would end in nuclear exchange - the only way to avoid that is not push any power to the point of last resort, and negotiate an unsatisfying agreement that leaves the aggressors in power, no matter what horrible things they do. Would all have shown such restraint, would cooler heads have prevailed amid the terrible atrocities of total war? I'm not particularly optimistic of the chances.