God Kefka wrote:Sounds to me like you're saying you find it plausible to believe that the American population and leadership as a whole can adopt a jihadist mindset (completely sacrifice yourself and cease to exist) so that World War II will not have been fought ''for nothing.''
Well lets start by getting rid of misconceptions here. First of all your usage of the term Jihad and extended terms.
A Jihad is, first of all, not a term meaning to completely sacrifice yourself and cease to exist. It means struggle, primarily of the religious kind and predominately used by those of the Muslim faith. Since the conflict between the US and USSR was neither religious nor are either a Muslim majority nation your usage of the term is misplaced.
It's a notion that's at the same time both disturbing and romantic.
Only because you don't understand it.
You seem to find the idea that the Americans would rather be completely destroyed then let some countries in Europe be conquered by the Soviet Union plausible. Seems a bit silly and irrational really...
Perhaps you need to examine the Truman Doctrine.
But easy for you to say right? Since you are not there in America in such a hypothetical situation.
Neither were you, the difference in out stances is that mine is based at least somewhat on what actually happened. Your is entirely hypothetical situation that completely disregards major elements of US security policy.
I bet if it really happened now, you wouldn't be so keen to press a red button for some foreigners a few continents away... over some abstract ''strategic interests'' in foreign policy.
Once again, the Truman Doctrine. Read it.
And yes, those things seem abstract when pressing a red button means your homes, families, and lives will be directly nuked in retaliation.
Why is it you insist that the USSR is immune from these things?
The idea that the USA's population and leadership were the political equivalent of the religious terrorist jihad
Which only you are suggesting. Which in itself is brings up the suggestion that you don't know the definition of a Jihad or terrorism.
... willing to completely die if it means destroying the other side... is quite frankly ridiculous.
Given the time period you set out, it is unlikely either side had the nuclear capacity to completely wipe out the other. The US in fact would have been better placed, because it would have been very hard for the soviets to hit the major population centers on the east coast.
Ill also point out that the idea of MAD is that it is used defensively. If the US and USSR got into a war (which an invasion of Europe would trigger due to the presence of US troops) both countries were done for anyway. The idea is to deter war, and if you don't use it then having such a weapon loses all meaning.
Some people take the RHETORIC of the Cold War too seriously.
and some people don't understand it and start making wild assumptions.
