Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.Originally Posted by Ken White
For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact...
The Soviets were going to be faced in Europe with the war destruction taking place there and not in and to the US (with no immediate existential threat to itself). .
The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.
For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.
In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.
Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.
Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.
Bookmarks