trc (04/11/83)
In response to Jeffrey Soreff's response: I have indeed considered what it would mean for the US to use its weapons. There are several ways to use nuclear weapons. The one that the US would have been most likely to use is the one that was used when Russia tried basing missiles in Cuba. And though Russia was an ally in WWII, it was only a marriage of convenience for them. Their actions shortly after WWII proved this conclusively, I believe. Any supposed ally acting in the manner of Russia should have been treated in a similar manner. But instead of being strong, the route of appeasement (that worked so well with Hitler, remember?) was taken. Your comment that Russian military forces limits US power appears to me to be an deliberate inversion of the truth. The US has foreign based troops exactly because of the sort of actions that the USSR has taken. (And how would the government have been able to convince Americans to support a huge military, if there were not a very real threat from Russia? Note that this is not a problem that the USSR has to deal with!) How many countries has the US conquered and kept since WWII? In fact, we have given up some territory that we neednt have - the latest example of which is the Panama canal. Compare this with Russia's record in Eastern Europe, and other parts of the world. Tom Craver houti!trc