Because while NATO and WP were in an armed standoff over the Fulda gap noone wanted to needlessly escalate into total war, lol? Not out of taboo but out of not being suicidal.
So no one used nuclear weapons because no one wanted to trigger a nuclear WW3, and no one has still used them for 20 years after the USSR ceased to exist, and you think that means its not taboo. Read between the lines a little mate.
How many times has the euro nations actually gotten anything done without relying on the US bearing the brunt of the workload? They couldn't even take on Libya without needing to call the US first, lol?
Have you not read the rest of the thread? If they wanted it badly enough, and the US declined to be involved, the UK and France could still have done the intervention on their own. More time money resources convenient not necessary blah blah I have already repeatedly made these points.
So we'd all move from allying with democracy towards allying with a dictatorship. Protip: The US is still the biggest kid in the playground and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future regardless of what China-fanbois wank about.
If this great and benevolent democracy starts overturning decades of tradition and unspoken agreements that we don't do nuclear first strikes, particularly against countries that have no capacity to retaliate at all? Then probably, yes.
Also, the thing about growing powers like China is that they, well, grow. I'm not a China fanboy, they aren't my favorite country by any means and I have very serious reservations about their leadership[ but that doesn't mean I ignore the facts because they make the world different to how I would like it to be.
Dropping a small nuclear bunker buster at a remote location is the same as obliterating an entire city with hundreds of thousands of casualites? lol?
No, it's a preemptive nuclear strike on a nation that literally cannot hurt you at all. It's the equivalent of a full grown man walking up to a toddler and kicking him in the face. Unnecessary, brutal, and you are going to look at him funny from then on even if the toddler was being a massive dick.
China doesn't have anywhere near the power-projection capabilities of the US.Also there is no way in hell Europe would ally with communist China over the US unless the US somehow ceases to be a democracy, and since that was the context of his argument that means the US is still biggest and the best by default from not being a totaliarian shithole like China or Russia.
No, but they are the only people apart from the US who are making a serious run at actually acquiring those capabilities. And if the US starts using force to get things done more than they are comfortable with, they will have no choice but to pull away from the US and move toward China because there is no other option.
To serve its intended purpose. To perform needed interventions. The Balkans are proof enough.
Ummm, no. The intended purpose of NATO, as a defensive alliance, was to defend the west in case the Soviet Union decide it wanted war. And I've asked this before and I'll ask again, what, precisely, was done by the US in the Balkans that Europe couldn't achieve on its own?
don't know, ask Alkaloid. All I'm saying is since we had so little conventional arms during the cold war (because WW3 was going to be nukes) we probably don't have a lot more with the last 20 years of successive defense budget cuts so yes, in the event of some mysterious enemy (read: Commies) from the east attacking Europe very much needs the raw military power of America to make up for the man gap.
Fuck off. You're the one saying that Europe needs the might of the US military to defend itself against its many enemies, you can provide the details of who these enemies actually are and how and why they will attack. I'm the one saying they don't are are actually doing OK when it comes to their military capabilities.