We learned that we needed to listen to other countries, even if they are out of their gourds; hence the United Nations. And we learned that we needed to encourage all countries to subscribe to the idea of international law. That has helped immensely with resolving conflict (although conflict occasionally occurs), as well as protecting wildlife and natural resources. I don't disagree that Vietnam was a mistake. JFK was too immature, and LBJ was just too stupid. The Korean War could have been resolved had we listened to China when China told us not to continue further north. The second Iraq War could have been handled much better (as could Afghanistan), with better results both for the U.S. and the country we were in. Once again, GWB was not that bright. The biggest mistake after WWII was not taking security seriously on the nuclear weapons program. Had the U.S. been the only country with the bomb, we would have made a few, and they would have been stored in vaults under lock and key, with no need to use them. It would be difficult to foresee circumstances after WWII requiring the use of nuclear weapons. This mistake has repeated itself over and over again with the defense industries on all kinds of weapons systems, with both people security and computer security. Obviously, we did not use nuclear weapons against China / North Korea when Chinese troops were massed at the border and starting their invasion. Mentally-challenged people like the Rosenbergs who thought that the world would be safer if more than one country had the bomb had no clue what they were unleashing on the world. They fell for Soviet propaganda, just like many Americans fell for Nazi propaganda before WWII, and acted unilaterally against the rest of the free world, with no discussion or vote.
Well when only one country had the bomb it was used on the enemy, since the Soviets acquired one, no one has used them in a conflict. Hard to say the dissenters were wrong other than in a counterfactual sense, though certainly the brinksmanship and paranoia was not great and nearly resulted in tragedy a number of times. What does seem to be the case is having nukes gets you a seat at the big boy table and probably curtails the options countries have for dealing with you. Otherwise you might get the Gaza treatment. One country having them is just not sustainable without some really bad shit, and believe it, we tried.
"Do they see themselves as proxies?" Good lord.. they are being murdered, raped, children stolen. They are fighting for their existence and some schmo goes over to check to see if they think they are "proxies". SMDH.
Other countries would have developed nuclear weapons even without the Rosenbergs....they just hastened it.
I doubt Hamas see themselves as proxies of Iran. Their people are being murdered, raped, etc. They are fighting for the existence of their people after all against an 'evil' occupier, just taking whatever assistance they can get, without much regard for Iran's geopolitical ambitions. As always, who's violence is righteous is extremely selective and contingent on who's orbit they are in. You can also ask how prolonging a war that is basically a stalemate is helping to stop rape, murder, etc.
Klaus Fuchs et al hastened it quite a bit. The first bomb the Soviets tested was almost an exact replica of the Trinity device, and the method of synthesizing the plutonium was stolen from us as well. If the Soviets had had to build a nuclear program from scratch and discover the secrets for themselves, then it probably would have taken them another 10 years and, more importantly, a great deal more of their resources.
You have lost your mind. I have been on this site for YEARS and that is the dumbest thing I've ever read here and I've seen some amazingly stupid posts.
we make them to be prepared to use them against those with no respect for others boundaries/borders, not because we want to use them. I carry a 44 with me when I go salmon fishing and hiking in Alaska, not because I enjoy the extra weight or because I want to shoot a charging grizzly, but because I want to be able drop one if the air horn and yelling and screaming doesn't discourage them from charging me.
Weird how we keep finding people that fit the bill, and I have to say, a lot of times we are the ones with no respect for boundaries or borders when we do. Those things dont apply to us because we have the most guns and bombs. The rules are for whoever we deem is working against us.
what does any of this have to do with the Ukrainian war. If you want to discuss WW2, please start a separate thread
Can you imagine how dangerous it would be, for the US, if other countries had their Monroe Doctrines ?
Tell that to the people who bring it up anytime you critique current foreign policy including this war
You never know. No doubt Russia has had some very good physicists. China has been trying to get a more powerful fighter jet engine for decades, and have been unable to develop one. They used to use intermediaries from South Korea and Thailand to try to buy a used F-16 engine from repair shops in the U.S., but they have always been caught. At the very least, you buy time. Some places might give up after a period of time if they are not successful. Eventually, every project runs into an ignorant juvenile politician that says, "We've already spent $X on this project--what is $Y more going to buy for us?" If J.D. Vance was in Congress in the 1960's, we could have killed the moon landing project in 1962.
Think of it like showering; sometimes it's necessary, but sometimes it's better not to roll around in the mud of ignorance and not need to shower.
Jeffrey Lewis has a great observation when people question how a country now can develop a nuclear capability, and whether it necessarily means it was some type of leak or theft. He especially says it about North Korea. He mentions that we're talking about the technology that is now over half a century old. To imagine that any country with a decent science program could not come up with a way to build an atomic bomb and deliver it with some effectiveness is kind of silly, especially with so much already out in the public domain.
Europe was not "divided up" after the war--countries were returned to their pre-war borders for the most part. Germany was divided up into four sectors after the war. But it was not divided as possessions for the victors, but as responsibilities. Four countries oversaw post-war Germany. Only one of the four viewed their sector as a spoil of war. (Guess which one?) That country set up a puppet government, and started building walls around their part of the capital, Berlin. It was the USSR. They did essentially the same thing with virtually every country in eastern Europe that they could get their hands on. The Soviets proved over and over that they could not be trusted. England gave them a Merlin jet engine after the war, for some foolish reason. U.S. pilots were shot down by Russian pilots in planes powered by a Soviet version of that engine during the Korean War. Why was Russia fighting us (their benefactors during WWII) in the Korean War? It was a chance to kill Americans and test new fighter jet designs. The USSR considered it "legal" because they put a North Korean flag sticker on their planes. What are a few American lives worth to Stalin? Nothing. If the U.S. had just ignored the Soviets, there would still be a Cold War, except it would be between European countries and the USSR. And they might have been in some serious danger of the USSR invading them at some point without U.S. troops in Europe. The Soviets do not respect or tolerate weakness. To them, it is an invitation for someone to crush the weak and enslave them. We did not make the Cold War--the USSR did. It really is the height of ignorance to pretend otherwise. The USSR went out of their way to kill Americans during the Cold War.
My earlier point was that if the U.S. had done more to keep the bomb a secret, and had ended the development program within a few years, we might have been able to keep the secret. Obviously, if that was the case, nothing would be allowed in the open domain.
One of the top Russian military commanders had his reputation damaged when he sent an inexperienced paratrooper unit in near Kherson and it got destroyed. Russian bloggers were calling for the general to resign. A new Russian paratrooper unit was badly beaten in its first fight in Ukraine, sparking fury at a top commander, Western intel says
