Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 3Jane
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
worst case scenario is that the european nations are caught pants around ankles and heads in sand.
|
Thats how every war gets started. Peace through awareness and superior firepower is the only way to stop war. |
That is of course how the two world wars were prevented. |
Who had the superior firepower in both wars at the beginning? Germany and ????? Most nations closed their minds to the tell tale signs because it was easier to hope than take preventative action. You have a big barrel sticking in the belligerents face they wouldn't risk it. Nations attack only when they think they can win. |
I do not understand your point and to my poor brain it seems you contradict yourself by saying on the one hand nations only go to war if they think they can win, and on the other hand the possession of superior firepower is the only assurance of peace. Surely if you think you have superior firepower, how can you not also think you can win a fight?
There are hundreds of books detailing the origin of WW1, and many of them will cite the arms race between the great powers as being one of the primary causes. This was coupled with a belief in the power of the offensive and a failure to grasp that at that time the strategic balance had shifted strongly in favour of the defensive. Along with lots of other reasons too..
An arms race being excatly the situation whereby each power tries to attain superiority of firepower without decisive results. Clearly in this case the fact that no one power had superiorty did not lead to peace.
However, on the otherhand, the reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was because it did believe it had superiority of firepower. It also believed that noone else would think it worth fighting about becasue the strength of his army would deter others.
The US on the otherhand felt it had ample superiority of firepower to go ahead and fight the Gulf War with reasonable expectations of winning at low cost to themselves in terms of blood.
However look at the second Gulf War. The reason the US attacked Iraq with such blithe disregard for the consequences is precisely because of confidence in the vast superiority of its firepower.
And I put it to you that the reason neither the US nor the USSR attacked each other was because neither power believed it had the superiorty of firepower necessary to win at acceptable loss to themselves.
Thus in conclusion i say that the relationship of superiority of firepower to the incidence of war is not as simple as you stated