Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
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?
|
Let me put it like this. If France had superior firepower Germany would not have attacked. If Germany was better informed and more aware about the Soviet military Germany would not have attacked in WW2.
If I have a knife and you have a 357 magnum I won't attack you. I wouldn't even want to make you mad at me. If that is the case there is no fight. You have superior firepower therefore I won't attack. Turn that around. I have a 357 magnum and all you have is a knife, you are toast my friend. Understand? |
Agreed, but what if the person intending to do the attacking IS the one with the gun and his intended victim only has a knife? You seem to imply that such a scenario is implausible. But cases where the very heavily armed attack the far less-well armed are many.
A few additional examples:
Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union attack Poland in 1939
The US attacks and annexes Native American territory
Britain and France absorb almost all of Africa into their respective Empires
Russia expands all the way to the pacific absorbing any number of central asian nations
China invades Tibet.
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
No. What the U.S. did was think that Iraqis would be so grateful for making them free. They won the war then the Arab reality kicked in.
They didn't have a blithe disregard they totally misunderstood the Arab mind. This is a whole other topic.
|
I think your response avoids the main point - which is that the fact of US superiorty of firepower did not avert war
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'd say that was common sense. They each had a 357 magnum pointing at each others head.
|
So neither had superiority of firepower and the result was an uneasy peace.
Clearly I don't know as much of history as you do, but I am of the opinion that cases abound where the stronger attack the weaker. Wars may start because one party perceives their chance of winning as high and the rewards worth the risk. Some wars become nasty and long when the other party turns out to be tougher than the attacker supposed.
Much of the quest for nations to have an adequate defense is because they have long perceived weakness to be an invitation to attack, and not a guarantee that it won't happen.
Once a nation's quest for security develops to such a stage that other nations begin to fear its capabilites they will also try to strengthen themselves, by alliance or by rearmamanent on the grounds that if they appear to be weak they themeselves are liable to be attacked.
Am I missing your point here or what? Please explain more clearly why it is that peace is guaranteed if one side is far stronger than the other. What stops the stronger from attacking?