The End of War

[Augustus]

mean the fact that neutral and non-aligned states existed, and continue to exist, in spite of your insistence that such a stance would be naive and nonsensical.

Again you completely miss the point.

That you can be a neutral state does not mean being neutral protects you from predatory nations on your doorstep.

Being neutral hardly protected the Dutch and Belgians from the Germans did it?

In the same way, being neutral wouldn't have protected central Europe from the USSR in the absence of a credible military threat that protected their independence.

Thinking otherwise is naive.

Correct, many fought wars for promises of loot from seized cities, ransom or slaves from captured prisoners, land from conquered areas or an elevated status in conquered territories. i.e. people fought wars because they directly benefitted from doing so, or indirectly benefitted by being legally or socially bound to someone who did (e.g. the retainers or serfs of a conquering lord, or soldier-citizens of a city-state whose oligarchs were to gain from warfare).

Which makes far more sense than engaging in a massive conspiracy to fight a war, primarily so someone else who has no power over you benefits.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The ego issue is talked about in eastern religions, so I am not sure that would take hold in the US. Teaching this in the home would be beneficial.

I see the supression of ego, or self is fundamental to all Faiths.

So I think it will be very easy for children to deepen on this topic.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

It may have been a case of them being more afraid of us than we were of them. I think the major sticky point between the USSR and the Western Powers was in regards to what would be done with Germany. The USSR's biggest fear was that Germany could rebuild and grow into another dangerous threat. There were even those in the West who wanted to totally dismantle German industry and turn it into a giant goat pasture.

When it was clear that the US and Britain were planning to rebuild Western Germany as a bulwark against communism, the Soviets apparently felt they needed a buffer between their own territory and the Western Allies, which were being more contentious and hostile.

While it was certainly bad for the Eastern European states which fell under Soviet control, in a larger geopolitical perspective, the Soviet actions could just as easily be interpreted as defensive in nature. I would not consider that to be evidence of any kind of secret plan or conspiracy to invade the rest of Europe or the world as a whole.

Many military actions can, to some extent, be argued as defensive in nature (especially prior to the last 75 years).

You don't want powerful enemies on your borders, so you create a buffer zone. You don't want powerful enemies to conquer territory so you take it first. You don't want to be dependent on foreign powers for strategic resources, so you annex the places they are produced. You are not as rich as other powers, so you conquer territory to increase income.

It's like "the scramble for Africa", Britain ended up controlling large areas of land it didn't really want and couldn't really afford just so France didn't get them. If that had happened, it could have threatened the strategic areas that Britain actually did want to control.

I don't think the US leadership ever seriously believed the Soviets were planning on world conquest - otherwise they would have sent in guys like Patton and MacArthur to go in and "do their worst," as it were. But they did know that the British, French, and other colonial powers were severely weakened, and their colonies were full of angry, resentful populations ready to shake off the yoke of colonialism, and communism became attractive to many.

After that point, it became mostly an ideological war, which was virulently waged within America as much as anywhere else. Neither side appeared willing to risk a direct confrontation, but a great many proxy governments and insurgency groups were used as pawns.

They would have conquered Central Europe is they thought it could be achieved relatively easily though. The Comintern (and its successors) had been involved in aiding revolutionary parties overseas from shortly after the revolution. Their activities were scaled down when the ideological goal of 'world revolution' was scaled down from WW2 onwards.

While I agree it was no longer a real threat, that is simply because it was militarily and economically unfeasible by that point, and consolidation became key.

As for the Soviets, they didn't know what we were planning or what our government was up to. What if someone like Joe McCarthy became president? They had to think about possibilities like that, including the possibility of America's leadership going stark raving mad. That was also a very strong deterrent, but it also made the Russians quite wary of us and our intentions. Americans can sometimes be changeable, and what we say today may not be what we do tomorrow.

Many stories have come out about how paranoid the Soviets were and how close we came to nuclear war, the last time under Reagan (who they were particularly paranoid about).

On 26 September 1983, the nuclear early-warning radar of the Soviet Union reported the launch of one intercontinental ballistic missile with four more missiles behind it, from bases in the United States. These missile attack warnings were suspected to be false alarms by Stanislav Petrov, an officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces on duty at the command center of the early-warning system. He decided to wait for corroborating evidence—of which none arrived—rather than immediately relaying the warning up the chain-of-command. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack against the United States and its NATO allies, which would likely have resulted in an escalation to a full-scale nuclear war. Investigation of the satellite warning system later determined that the system had indeed malfunctioned.

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

 

[Kooky]

Again you completely miss the point.

That you can be a neutral state does not mean being neutral protects you from predatory nations on your doorstep.

Being neutral hardly protected the Dutch and Belgians from the Germans did it?

The Allies' guarantee and alliance with Poland didn't prevent the latter from being attacked and occupied during WW2, now did it. So clearly, being part of a military alliance is not proof against attacks by "predatory nations", a concept that I find rather amusing by the way. Would you consider the US a "predatory nation", for example, for invading more countries than any other country in the last 50 years? I doubt it.

Fact is, your argument is one of these abstract thought experiments that sounds very convincing, but falls apart when confronted with historical fact. Are you really going to argue that the leadership of all these neutral countries was composed entirely of naive idiots who didn't know what they were doing, whereas NATO and Warzaw Pact countries were doing the only smart thing possible by joining up with one of the nuclear superpowers?

Which makes far more sense than engaging in a massive conspiracy to fight a war, primarily so someone else who has no power over you benefits.

I don't see why we need a conspiracy to explain how national elites who stand to gain from military spending will tend to push for hawkish policies and increased military budgets.

 

[Stevicus]

Many military actions can, to some extent, be argued as defensive in nature (especially prior to the last 75 years).

You don't want powerful enemies on your borders, so you create a buffer zone. You don't want powerful enemies to conquer territory so you take it first. You don't want to be dependent on foreign powers for strategic resources, so you annex the places they are produced. You are not as rich as other powers, so you conquer territory to increase income.

It's like "the scramble for Africa", Britain ended up controlling large areas of land it didn't really want and couldn't really afford just so France didn't get them. If that had happened, it could have threatened the strategic areas that Britain actually did want to control.

Yeah, it's the idea that "if we don't take this territory, some other country will." If I recall correctly, that reasoning was the impetus behind the US acquisitions of Panama and Hawaii.

With Russia, it was different, since they didn't really go out and grab colonies. However, they did push eastward into the region which had mostly been controlled by the Mongol Empire, which had fallen apart and left a power vacuum.

They would have conquered Central Europe is they thought it could be achieved relatively easily though. The Comintern (and its successors) had been involved in aiding revolutionary parties overseas from shortly after the revolution. Their activities were scaled down when the ideological goal of 'world revolution' was scaled down from WW2 onwards.

While I agree it was no longer a real threat, that is simply because it was militarily and economically unfeasible by that point, and consolidation became key.

Historically, Russians have been rather poor conquerors. Most of their territorial expansion was the result of defensive wars - or backing in to territory left as a result of a power vacuum (such as with the collapse of the Mongol Empire). The Crimean War was a disaster for the Russians, as was the Russo-Japanese War. WW1 was a total disaster which led to the collapse of the Tsarist government. While they managed to conquer the tiny Baltic Republics in 1940, they had a Dickens of a time against an only slightly larger Finland. However, they did gain a good deal of territory as a result of winning defensive wars against Napoleon and Hitler.

I think the powers of Central and Western Europe would have given the Russians a much harder time than the Finns on bicycles.

As for the Comintern, yes, that was part of their overall goal of world revolution. Ideologically, the goal was not conquest, but revolution and unity among all the workers of the world (which still remains a worthy goal to this day).

They would not have tried to conquer Cuba or Vietnam on their own, but if they had ideological brethren in those countries asking for their assistance, then they were willing to provide it. Technically speaking, that's what they did in Eastern Europe. They were able to find active Communist groups among the people in those nations and helped them to gain power. They didn't really invade or conquer as much as they liberated them from Nazi rule. And in the case of Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, they were Axis countries and enemies, so what happened to them was a logical consequence of war.

Many stories have come out about how paranoid the Soviets were and how close we came to nuclear war, the last time under Reagan (who they were particularly paranoid about).

On 26 September 1983, the nuclear early-warning radar of the Soviet Union reported the launch of one intercontinental ballistic missile with four more missiles behind it, from bases in the United States. These missile attack warnings were suspected to be false alarms by Stanislav Petrov, an officer of the Soviet Air Defence Forces on duty at the command center of the early-warning system. He decided to wait for corroborating evidence—of which none arrived—rather than immediately relaying the warning up the chain-of-command. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack against the United States and its NATO allies, which would likely have resulted in an escalation to a full-scale nuclear war. Investigation of the satellite warning system later determined that the system had indeed malfunctioned.

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

Reagan was just an older, more senile version of Joe McCarthy. A lot of these guys were obsessed with the Soviet Union and communism, as an ideology. They were looking for communist conspiracies under every bush (which is why I roll my eyes any time some wise guy tries to lambaste so-called "conspiracy theories," as if they never heard of Nixon, Reagan, McCarthy, Goldwater, Hoover, or any of that ilk).

 

[Augustus]

The Allies' guarantee and alliance with Poland didn't prevent the latter from being attacked and occupied during WW2, now did it. So clearly, being part of a military alliance is not proof against attacks by "predatory nations",

You are making my case for me. Of course it's no proof, that's the exact point.

Germany judged they could take Poland easily and face minimal consequences. They had insufficient deterrence.

There is no guarantee with any amount of strength, but the more deterrence you have, the lower your risk

Fact is, your argument is one of these abstract thought experiments that sounds very convincing, but falls apart when confronted with historical fact. Are you really going to argue that the leadership of all these neutral countries was composed entirely of naive idiots who didn't know what they were doing, whereas NATO and Warzaw Pact countries were doing the only smart thing possible by joining up with one of the nuclear superpowers?

You are repeating the same strawman.

The point is not "can nations be neutral?", but would neutrality have stopped the Soviet Union from annexing much of Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrent.

We know the Soviets expanded into Ukraine, etc., we know they tried to spread revolution abroad, we we know they collided with the Nazis to invade Poland. We know they annexed much of Eastern Europe post WW2.

It is naive to think they would have stopped there had there been no military deterrence and Germany et al. had just said "we are defenceless, but please don't invade. We are neutral you see. Let's be friends instead and sing kumbaya".

This has nothing to do with whether it made sense for countries like Indonesia to be non-aligned during the Cold War.

 

[Kooky]

The point is not "can nations be neutral?", but would neutrality have stopped the Soviet Union from annexing much of Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrent.

I don't know what you've been argueing, but my point has been that a country doesn't need to side with a major military alliance to be safe from them, which is supported by the historical example of neutral and unaligned countries during the Cold War who did survive without joining up with either nuclear power.

You seem to argue about a military threat to these countries that factually never existed.
Do you think it is a hostile military alliance that stops the US from invading Ethiopia or the People's Republic of the Congo?

 

[Augustus]

I don't know what you've been argueing, but my point has been that a country doesn't need to side with a major military alliance to be safe from them, which is supported by the historical example of neutral and unaligned countries during the Cold War who did survive without joining up with either nuclear power.

You seem to argue about a military threat to these countries that factually never existed.
Do you think it is a hostile military alliance that stops the US from invading Ethiopia or the People's Republic of the Congo?

I've no idea why you think any of that is relevant to whether or not military deterrence kept central Europe from being invaded by the Soviet Union which was the point you replied to.

It's not like all countries have an equal chance of being invaded by all nations at any time.

Anyway, Africa is a paradigm case of what can happen when nations are faced with vastly superior military forces who have the motivation to conquer them.

Why do you think Europe would have been safe from a vastly superior Soviet military with a clear motivation to conquer them?

 

[Kooky]

I've no idea why you think any of that is relevant to whether or not military deterrence kept central Europe from being invaded by the Soviet Union which was the point you replied to.

It seems to me that their neutrality did not have a detrimental effect to their chances of being invaded.

Do you believe it was military deterrence that kept Eastern Europe and South Asia from being invaded by the US?

It's not like all countries have an equal chance of being invaded by all nations at any time.

Which means that unalignment and neutrality can be perfectly viable geopolitical strategies.

Anyway, Africa is a paradigm case of what can happen when nations are faced with vastly superior military forces who have the motivation to conquer them.

Africa is a continent, not a country, and a pretty big place regardless. If you want to bring up a concrete example in support of your case, then please be a little more specific than this.

 

[Augustus]

It seems to me that their neutrality did not have a detrimental effect to their chances of being invaded.

Do you believe it was military deterrence that kept Eastern Europe and South Asia from being invaded by the US?

Eastern Europe under the Soviets? Yes. Had there been no threat from the Soviet Union then I'm sure NATO would have liberated much of Eastern Europe. They'd probably have overthrown the Soviet Regime too had it been feasible.

South Asia? No. But because they had no motivation. They still interfered in countries to the extent they believed necessary.

As you keep pointing out, if the US has a desire to invade, it will. Of course this only applies to countries without sufficient military deterrence.

Given we know the Soviet Union did have a desire to spread communism, why do you think Lenin and Stalin would have had no motivation to invade a defenceless Central Europe?

Which means that unalignment and neutrality can be perfectly viable geopolitical strategies.

Which no one has doubted, but is still irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is naive to think that non-alignment or neutrality would have kept Central Europe safe in the absence of a credible military deterrence which is the point you replied to.

Africa is a continent, not a country, and a pretty big place regardless. If you want to bring up a concrete example in support of your case, then please be a little more specific than this.

Well done for noticing

I thought you would also be aware of its recent history which involved most of the continent: Scramble for Africa - Wikipedia

If you have:

a) Insufficient credible military deterrence
b) Someone much stronger who has the motivation to take parts of your territory

It doesn't matter how 'neutral' you are, they may still take part or all of your territory.

 

[Kooky]

South Asia? No. But because they had no motivation. They still interfered in countries to the extent they believed necessary.

So there needs to be a motivation to invade.
Thank you for finally agreeing that there needs to be sufficient motivation.

Now we can start working out where we think such motivations may come from.
What do you believe motivates the United States into military action?
What do you believe motivates Putin's Russia?

 

[Augustus]

So there needs to be a motivation to invade.
Thank you for finally agreeing that there needs to be sufficient motivation.

Now we can start working out where we think such motivations may come from.
What do you believe motivates the United States into military action?
What do you believe motivates Putin's Russia?

And we know that there was a good chance that the USSR did indeed have sufficient motivation, hence it would have been naive to trust in "neutrality" to protect Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrence.

 

[Kooky]

And we know that there was a good chance that the USSR did indeed have sufficient motivation, hence it would have been naive to trust in "neutrality" to protect Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrence.

But we're not talking about the USSR, the USSR is dead and gone.

We're talking about the modern day situation.

So what motivates modern day Russia to invade other countries, and what motivates the US?

 

[Augustus]

But we're not talking about the USSR, the USSR is dead and gone.

We're talking about the modern day situation.

So what motivates modern day Russia to invade other countries, and what motivates the US?

I was talking about the USSR, and that was what you replied to.

Do you agree that there was a good chance that the USSR did indeed have sufficient motivation, hence it would have been naive to trust in "neutrality" to protect Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrence?

 

[Kooky]

Do you agree that there was a good chance that the USSR did indeed have sufficient motivation, hence it would have been naive to trust in "neutrality" to protect Central Europe in the absence of a credible military deterrence?

There's a whole host of premises packaged with that loaded question that I already disagree with, such as the notion that only the existence of NATO posed a credible deterrence post-WW2 to a Soviet invasion of Central Europe.

If anything, it was NATO that produced the motivation for the USSR to advance its sphere of influence by locking them out of those areas and facilitating American military and economic dominance over half of Europe.

The Warzaw Pact and COMECON both were reactions to the Marshall Plan and the foundation of NATO, and probably wouldn't have happened if the Allies had managed to co-operate after the common threat of Nazi Germany was gone - an unrealistic pipedream, certainly, but an interesting hypothetical to think through just how much geopolitics were influenced by the antagonism of West vs. USSR, an antagonism that very much preceded any supposed USSR "motivation" to invade Europe (the first and last time the USSR half-seriously attempted such a feat was when Trotzky was still running the Red Army).

 

[Augustus]

There's a whole host of premises packaged with that loaded question that I already disagree with, such as the notion that only the existence of NATO posed a credible deterrence post-WW2 to a Soviet invasion of Central Europe.

There are always alternative paths to achieving things, so yes a Europe without NATO could have developed.

But you do agree a military deterrence of some form was necessary to prevent Soviet expansion given they had already demonstrated, on multiple occasions, a willingness to forcibly conquer territory to expand their sphere of influence?

What do you think this would have looked like though? If the US had simply washed their hands of Europe after WW2 and let Britain, France and the USSR fight it out among themselves? Do you think this is more likely to have produced a stable Europe? Personally I'd say it would be far less likely.

No one trusted each other. Without the US to help impose some kind of settlement with their economic and military leverage, as well as help rebuild economies and defences what would happen to Germany?

With France and Britain having to rebuild their economies while rebuilding their militaries to counter the Soviet threat (and potential German threat), there would be more chance of extremism.

You also have a balance of power in Europe that would be far more delicate which is not a great recipe for stability.

If anything, it was NATO that produced the motivation for the USSR to advance its sphere of influence by locking them out of those areas and facilitating American military and economic dominance over half of Europe.

Or the expansionism of the USSR produced the motivation for the Marshall Plan to prevent more of Europe being dominated by the Soviet Union.

Both sides perceived threats.

The Warzaw Pact and COMECON both were reactions to the Marshall Plan and the foundation of NATO, and probably wouldn't have happened if the Allies had managed to co-operate after the common threat of Nazi Germany was gone - an unrealistic pipedream, certainly, but an interesting hypothetical to think through just how much geopolitics were influenced by the antagonism of West vs. USSR, an antagonism that very much preceded any supposed USSR "motivation" to invade Europe (the first and last time the USSR half-seriously attempted such a feat was when Trotzky was still running the Red Army).

The antagonism was basically inherent in the 2 ideologies. "Socialism in one country" rather than global revolution was only due to the failure of the latter to materialise.

If the Soviets had been militarily dominant post WW1, it is far less likely they would have changed tack in this way. If other nations had had the military ability to prevent it without significant costs, it's unlikely they would have allowed the Soviet regime to be established in the first place.

There was no 'good' solution post WW2, but, imo, without the US, Europe would have been far more volatile, and far less likely to develop into relatively peaceful and stable nations.

At least with US intervention the 2 blocs were relatively stable and the 'question' of Germany had probably its best possible solution.

What do you think was both realistic and would have had a good chance of resulting in a better outcome?

 

[Kooky]

There are always alternative paths to achieving things, so yes a Europe without NATO could have developed.

But you do agree a military deterrence of some form was necessary to prevent Soviet expansion given they had already demonstrated, on multiple occasions, a willingness to forcibly conquer territory to expand their sphere of influence?

I don't agree with your apparent premise that military deterrence is a binary state between nuclear armament and total surrender, annexation and occupation.

What do you think this would have looked like though? If the US had simply washed their hands of Europe after WW2 and let Britain, France and the USSR fight it out among themselves? Do you think this is more likely to have produced a stable Europe? Personally I'd say it would be far less likely

.
Do you think the antagonism between the USSR and the US produced a "stable" Europe? If so, then what you are saying is that the USSR was needed to ensure European stability.

No one trusted each other. Without the US to help impose some kind of settlement with their economic and military leverage, as well as help rebuild economies and defences what would happen to Germany?

Probably a unification that left substantial influence to the Allies across the board, and a major presence of German socialists, rather than the split into a US-dominated antisocialist and a USSR-dominated socialist German state.

With France and Britain having to rebuild their economies while rebuilding their militaries to counter the Soviet threat (and potential German threat), there would be more chance of extremism.

More than the Nazis who were re-integrated into German society with open arms because they just so happened to be very anti-Soviet in outlook?

What kind of "extremism" are you talking about?

You also have a balance of power in Europe that would be far more delicate which is not a great recipe for stability.

On the other hand, the existing system was constantly teetering on the brink of total nuclear annihilation.

Or the expansionism of the USSR produced the motivation for the Marshall Plan to prevent more of Europe being dominated by the Soviet Union.

What expansionism? The USSR didn't advance beyond the spheres of influence agreed upon at Yalta and later on at Potsdam. If you are talking about the invasion of Manchuria, that was in fact the USSR meeting earlier US demands (much like the Second, Western Front in Europe had been demanded by the USSR to lift German military pressure in Russia).

Both sides perceived threats.

Indeed. So why do we only focus on one side's perception here?

The antagonism was basically inherent in the 2 ideologies. "Socialism in one country" rather than global revolution was only due to the failure of the latter to materialise.

If the Soviets had been militarily dominant post WW1, it is far less likely they would have changed tack in this way.
After fighting an extremely costly civil war across the entirety of Eurasia? I strongly doubt that any hypothetical USSR would have been in such a position in the first place. Where would their heavy weapons, supplies and infrastructure come from? Even before the destructive Russian Civil War, Russia had trouble keeping its urban populations and armies fed and clothed at the same time. Solving that problem was the entire point of Lenin's NEP and Stalin's Five Year Plans.

If other nations had had the military ability to prevent it without significant costs, it's unlikely they would have allowed the Soviet regime to be established in the first place.

The other nations had bigger fish to fry at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution - namely, fighting WW1.

There was no 'good' solution post WW2, but, imo, without the US, Europe would have been far more volatile, and far less likely to develop into relatively peaceful and stable nations.

It is absolutely absurd to believe that the US would have refused to invade Europe after having been basically invited to stay and secure its military and economic dominance over half of it.

At least with US intervention the 2 blocs were relatively stable and the 'question' of Germany had probably its best possible solution.

I suppose, if you consider the constantly looming threat of utter annihilation by world-destroying nuclear arsenals a form of stability.

What do you think was both realistic and would have had a good chance of resulting in a better outcome?

"Better" for whom, and by whose measure?

 

[Augustus]

I don't agree with your apparent premise that military deterrence is a binary state between nuclear armament and total surrender, annexation and occupation.

It's your imaginary premise, not mine..

Can you explain how you think we could have avoided nuclear armament post-WW2 though? Why would USSR, France and the UK agreed to leave the US as the sole nuclear power?

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and once other powers have nukes, you have to develop your own unless you want to be beholden to them.

How do you avoid a nuclear arms race of some kind?

Do you think the antagonism between the USSR and the US produced a "stable" Europe? If so, then what you are saying is that the USSR was needed to ensure European stability.

It certainly helped to stabilise the West, along with US economic and military aid. Nothing helps unite like a common threat.

What kind of "extremism" are you talking about?

If you had slower economic recovery in Europe, increased expenditure on military due to delicate balance of power, concern over whatever settlement appeared in Germany and threat of future war, perceived national decline etc.

These are the kind of conditions that often lead to left and/or right wing extremism

Probably a unification that left substantial influence to the Allies across the board, and a major presence of German socialists, rather than the split into a US-dominated antisocialist and a USSR-dominated socialist German state.

How would this work when no one trusted each other and they had incompatible political and economic systems? It's not like both sides would trust the other to be honourable in their conduct.

Seems like a recipe for conflict and uncertainty.

What expansionism? The USSR didn't advance beyond the spheres of influence agreed upon at Yalta and later on at Potsdam. If you are talking about the invasion of Manchuria, that was in fact the USSR meeting earlier US demands (much like the Second, Western Front in Europe had been demanded by the USSR to lift German military pressure in Russia).

Baltic states, Poland, etc.

Indeed. So why do we only focus on one side's perception here?

We aren't.

It is absolutely absurd to believe that the US would have refused to invade Europe after having been basically invited to stay and secure its military and economic dominance over half of it.

Do you think it was a bad thing? That Europe would have been better off without economic aid and having to build up their own militaries rapidly?

I suppose, if you consider the constantly looming threat of utter annihilation by world-destroying nuclear arsenals a form of stability.

How do you avoid nuclear armed states who are antagonistic towards each other in post WW2 Europe?

"Better" for whom, and by whose measure?

Better for Western Europe based on whatever measure you like.

 

[Kooky]

It's your imaginary premise, not mine..

You certainly seemed dismissive of any form of deterrence that isn't a fleet of nuclear missiles capable of total global annihilation.

Can you explain how you think we could have avoided nuclear armament post-WW2 though? Why would USSR, France and the UK agreed to leave the US as the sole nuclear power?

They wouldn't.

Which points to the single greatest failure point of military deterrence: It produces an arms race to build up an ever more destructive military force to scare adjacent weaker nations into joining one alliance or abandon the other, until we are left with mutually assured annihilation as the sole level of military deterrence left to the post-WW2 nuclear alliances.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and once other powers have nukes, you have to develop your own unless you want to be beholden to them.

And yet, few countries have developed nukes, probably because they were led by naive idiots who foolishly refused to believe in the power if nuclear deterrence, and now face the only other option - total surrender and annexation by a predatory nation.

How do you avoid a nuclear arms race of some kind?

How indeed? The logic of military deterrence leads to an ever-spiralling buildup of destructive military force, capable of obliberating the world's population several times over.

If only there was an alternative to nuclear annihilation....

How would this work when no one trusted each other and they had incompatible political and economic systems? It's not like both sides would trust the other to be honourable in their conduct.

Seems like a recipe for conflict and uncertainty.

Yes, a system built solely on antagonism and distrust wouldn't have produced any sort of co-operation, obviously. Given this approach to geopolitics, I'm wondering why you think NATO could ever have worked as a military alliance.

Baltic states, Poland, etc.

Agreed upon in treaties with, first, Nazi Germany and, later, the Western Allies at Yalta and Potsdam.

Okay, granted, the annexation of the East Prussian remnants that Poland didn't absorb could be argued to be a form of post-WW2 territorial expansion.

Do you think it was a bad thing? That Europe would have been better off without economic aid and having to build up their own militaries rapidly?

Good, bad, America was the guy with the nuclear bomb.

How do you avoid nuclear armed states who are antagonistic towards each other in post WW2 Europe?

How indeed. It's almost as if treating geopolitics as the military version of a game of chicken leads inevitably to our eventual nuclear annihilation.

 

[Augustus]

Which points to the single greatest failure point of military deterrence: It produces an arms race to build up an ever more destructive military force to scare adjacent weaker nations into joining one alliance or abandon the other, until we are left with mutually assured annihilation as the sole level of military deterrence left to the post-WW2 nuclear alliances.

The biggest failing of deterrence is that it sooner or later ends in war.

The biggest failing of a lack of deterrence is that it sooner or later ends in war.

The problem is that violence is part of human nature.

Yes, a system built solely on antagonism and distrust wouldn't have produced any sort of co-operation, obviously

Yet given there was plenty of antagonism and distrust, why do you think it was a viable possibility?

Agreed upon in treaties with, first, Nazi Germany and, later, the Western Allies at Yalta and Potsdam.

That makes it fine then.

Suprised the Poles and Lithuanians even bothered complaining when the Soviets were obviously their rightful overlords.

How indeed. It's almost as if treating geopolitics as the military version of a game of chicken leads inevitably to our eventual nuclear annihilation

Which is the old conundrum, if you are weak the strong may prey on you. If you make yourself stronger, others fear being preyed on.

Humans are great at making technological progress, but not at rewiring our nature to make sufficient moral and social progress.

We can never transcend our genetic and cognitive limitations.

To repeat one of my favourite quotes for the nth time on RF, as JM Keynes said:

“Bertie [Bertrand Russell] held two ludicrously incompatible beliefs: on the one hand he believed that all the problems of the world stemmed from conducting human affairs in a most irrational way; on the other hand that the solution was simple, since all we had to do was to behave rationally.”


Which, going back to the OP, is why there will always be war.