Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
Germany is more than capable of developing nuclear weapons so why havn't they got any yet? Even South Africa has developed them.
What happens when the North German Plain is overrun within the span of a day by some 30-45,000 WARPAC tanks (out of 70,000 total AFV) and the FRG
decides it's time to turn up the thermostat on Central Heating as an alternative to having half their most populated cities behind enemy lines when
the ceasefire is declared?
You see, as long as the U.S maintains key on these things, WE decide whether we want to roast Europe, selectively. Roast /for/ Europe in a full up
SIOP response. Or plan for a second coming ala MacArthur out of France or Spain.
As alternatives to wimping out completely.
The reality being that the combination of overwhelming numbers (five times what we spent 6 months amassing in Saudi during Desert Shield),
inter-theater rail vs. external REFORGER (the 60mph vs. 20 knot math problem on reinforcement by SLOC) and Hitler's Highway network, along with FORTY
YEARS to plan for 'every contingency; the Russian Bear would have rolled NATO Europe like a hooker doing a gutter drunk.
Probably within 18hrs.
Since the POTUS is empowered to protect the U.S. Constitution, civillian population (though Katrina, atop 9/11, makes that something of a joke) and
only /then/ forces in the field (ours, allied or neutral/civillian); it makes no sense to 'allow' the FRG an independent nuclear option which puts
THEIR people ahead of his voters (though again, under our key, I believe they did have some Lance and I believe B43 or B61 for awhile).
Any of which 'Germans out of control again' the Russians could use as an excuse to expand a nuclear threshold excession to the inter-Continental
That being the ultimate deterrent to both sides in the sillyness of CentFront planning to lose:
1. You pop sunshine over our armored spearheads and we WILL instantly take the war over the Pole.
2. You put us in a situation where we /think/ we are going to lose Europe and we will razed-earth destroy it just so you can't have it and, if need
be, YOU (Moscow is within P2 and probably Gryphon range) will die, 20 minutes sooner that we do (SS-20 was a stupid mistake on their part because we
we largely Victor Alert restricted to long, slow, vulnerable deliveries before 1979).
All as a function of taped-sword self inhibiting brinksmanship.
The REAL question of course is whether the Cold War was intended to have real meaning while the two competing economic systems played out their hands
(properly run, Russia was miles and yards beyond our strategic resource capability to maintain a direct commercial competition, especially after the
waste that was WWII).
Or if this was simply the way in which _Europe_ was 'contained' so that there was no three-way struggle for trade and oil and navigation rights
dominance through a reinvigorated colonial vice client state system.
Some of you may have done the 'lets play England and the Colonies' social sciences game back in junior high school and if you did, you will have
noted how the weakest, most trade driven, intra-theater proto States always end up in a position of market control, simply because they operate on a
shorter decision cycle at close range than the massive 'Sun Never Sets' Empire to the east. Even as they are driven to succeed by having little to
offer from their own local landed resources (think New England) in comparison with the greater Southern States.
This is in fact typical of trade based economic structures /everywhere/ in that, if you don't boot-on-necks overrun occasionally with military force
and/or deny the influx of modern production methods (steel tooling etc.) to spoil their infrastructure and industrial base; they inevitably do better
with cheaper agro labor if not more area under the plow for subsistance crops while shifting towards mechanized, industrialized, trade frees up said
populace for purely 'growth' driven economic system changes.
OTOH, if you are trading as an 'equal partner' with a similarly advanced society, you tend to stagnate in litigated technology release and export
trade ratio conflicts of interest.
From this triple-threat standpoint, in 1939; industrialized, trade-savvy, resource depleted, **Europe**, not Russia, was the principle danger to U.S.
world dominance and always would be. Just as she was to the USSR (though more for strategic blue water access to markets than anything).
As such, the entire Cold War could be seen as an exercise in 'Romanizing' a powerblock system which denied our reverse-Colonial dependents in NATO
as much as any vague 'Carthaginian' threat a chance to advance up the ladder.
In some ways, it's a shame really. For if the U.S. hadn't interfered in WWI, it is almost certain that both sides would have stalemated out to a
point where a semi-feudalist view of 'states rights' driven micronationalist politics would have been rejected by a socialist populace driven to the
brink of economic dead-short.
While the argument that butchering 10-12 million Jews, Slavs and Assorted Cosmopolitans is a 'new low' in human behavioral justification for WWII's
'total surrender' doctrine compared to the 60-70 million Native Americans we put to the sword or 'relocated' in amalgamating CONUS under one
Yet, the fact remains that the latter is a fact buried in one liner references at best in most history books. While the former was a condition of
admitted demerit by which a madman (as all great conquerors are) demonized one segment of populace to MOTIVATE THE REMAINDER into the very same kind
of Manifest Destiny quest for a Western Sea that drove our own Go West Young Man dreams.
At which point, one has to ask:
If the 19th century was OUR time to grow to a federalized nation, forged and tempered by the preeminent question of Union vs. Partisan factionalism
that was the Civil War. Was the 20th supposed to be Europe's? And if so, would we have trusted a /Kaiser or a Hitler/ followon (cult of personality
or no, it would have happened, by 1950 with the latter's syphilis and the former's history of mental illness in the family) with nukes?
Certainly from the moment our blatant exploitation of the Vae Victis Vickers arms market requirement influenced without moral need the outcome of the
Great War; it can be said that we as much retarded as assisted with the development of Europe's unification by social Darwinism. Even as we utterly
obliterated all the elegance of what came before AND made them vulnerable to the greater danger of Leninist Communism out of the East.
How convenient. And of course how /interesting/ now that Force de Frappe (sp.) is now basically representative of EU power while Brit SSBN's sit
'neutral' so long as Blightey is in bed with the Uncle Sugar.