Any time Russian arms have been used in battle against Western arms the Russian failure has been nothing short of spectacular. Besides, for a missile defense to be effective it does not have to be 100% effective. The main contribution that defenses have on battle plans is on the attitude of the attacker. Of course, in the event, offense always has an advantage over defense, especially in terms of technology and surprise, but in almost all other areas of conflict as well. However, if Russia believes that WE believe that our defense will give us an advantage, they will never attack. Other than that, the entire exercise is rhetorical.

Right, but the whole point is that the Russians were always incapable of mounting an attack, counterattack, defense, etc., because none of their stuff would have worked properly...

Hey, give even the Keystone Kops a few thousand nuclear ICBMs and lots of people are going to get hurt, one way or another. Besides, you think the international elites hate the US now? What do you think would have happened if we'd had a nuclear war with the USSR? It'd make today's Bush hatred look like a fan club. Not that I'm overly concerned with what others think, but I want to avoid a situation where every American and American business overseas is attacked by screaming mobs.

But let's assume we had that war and won. Then what: occupy the glowing ruins of the USSR with how many million troops? That'd make Iraq look like a cheap day at the beach.

Sorry, I think it's better that we won a cold war than a hot one.

Unlike perhaps others here, I have extensive first-hand knowledge of nuclear weapons employment plans.

Any suggestion that failing to force a nuclear showdown during the Cold War is craven is utterly divorced from reality. Forgivable, since the reality wasn't particularly widely broadcast.

But completely wrong, nonetheless.

Let's see the Soviets essentially surrendered their entire Eastern European empire uncontested and then proceeded to commit national self dismemberment. How exactly would a nuclear exchange have improved that particular outcome?

Our bloodless coup against the Communists is nearly unparalleled in the annals of, "We won, you lost, your mother dresses you funny and she wears army boots too." Unless you specified that we wouldn't accept their unconditional surrender until George H. was allowed to spit on Gorbie's birth mark there wasn't much else you could do to gild that lily.

Now, tell me again, why did we need to murder an empire that was committing suicide?

Ray:

How about avoiding the societal dislocations of the 60s and 70s, saving a hundred million lives and trillions of dollars, etc.? All with just a couple nukes early in the war.

Sorry, I'm thinking probably not. This "early in the war" USSR was the one that had just taken 20 million or so casualties and had kept coming back for more.

Yeah, the Japanese were eager to die defending the motherland too.

That's because the Japanese, as luck had it, retained a few civilised men (Hirohito, for one) amongst their leadership. Who would you, OJ, have deputized amongst the 40's-vintage Soviets to whisper to Uncle Joe that he couldn't beat the Americans too?

All rather curious where the promiscuously paranoid perceive defensive missile systems as offensive weapons aimed in their direction.

Then again....

OJ would sacrifice hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, to the nuclear fires in order to prevent deaths not yet knowable.

In the four year window between the end of WWII and the Russians first nuclear detonation.

Without considering how war weary the US was.

Without considering the very real long term difference between crushing Communism (even had it proven successful) and allowing it time to clearly demonstrate its own failure.

There are few things easier, or more pointless, than highlighting the advantages of the road not taken, because the costs of that road are so difficult to ascertain.

Everyone knew the costs--but democracies prefer long term pain if short term can be avoided.

What Uncle Joe? He'd have been dead, as would Hirohito have been if we'd chosen to nuke him.

Nonsense--no one knew the costs not yet accrued.

And you certainly can't ascertain the costs of the road we did not take, making your conclusions rather empty.

Poland had a hunch...

Mr. Guinn makes an excellent point. It's not clear that long term, more lives won't be saved by the massively demonstrated failure of Soviet Communism than if it were a "matyr" society that would have changed the world into a global paradise if only the evil US hadn't nuked it out of existence.

AOG:

That "adopt communism and we nuke you" threat seems workable though.

Jeff:

Everyone knew.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/006447.html

"And you certainly can't ascertain the costs of the road we did not take, making your conclusions rather empty."

What's the worst that could have happened? The Apocalypse?