And it's a lesson for why it doesn't work for long even in extremely good circumstances, meanwhile no one now is a feudal island nation in east Asia in age of sail.Well that's because the only nations that tried isolationism were weak ones. It did work for Japan for 200 years though which I should remind you is a very good time something lasting centuries is very good.
What makes South America so special in the eyes of those hypothetical isolationists? Why not Europe, or East Asia? Economically, in the as-is world as opposed to 1850's, it would make more sense, as USA is more economically tied to those.Umm I said it below.
Isolationists only care about their own nation, they don't see benefit engaging with Europe of Asia, but they do see rightly or wrongly that securing South America is bennefical.
Not just nuclear powers, ask all the non-nuclear powers if they want all the third world shitholes to have nukes. Nuclear weapons are not that expensive, as shown by shitholes like NK and Pakistan having them. The delivery and support structure are expensive, and the former are to some degree dual use with conventional weapons. Note how in reality even the poorerst nuclear powers as abovementioned still maintain massive conventional armies.All nuclear powers don't want nuclear proliferation because nuclear powers are also conventional powerhouses. Nuclear weapons are expensive not every nation can make them but if they could that would make invasions impossible.
The observation, as opposed to smartass theories, show that countries go nuclear when conventional armies are not enough, rather than as replacement for them.
How do you nuke a blockade? You still have to have the same anti ship missiles and systems to use them, and still have to hit relatively close in terms of naval warfare to hurt a ship.I will watch the video later.
Also naval blockades can be fought with nukes.
My point exactly. How do you solve, say, the Donbass\Crimea shenanigans with nukes? Do you nuke yourself?Any aggressive action will recieve a full nuclear response.
Falklands?
It only gets worse when the other side is also a nuclear power.
Nukes are only a deterrent against open invasion or nuclear strike, and even then it gets iffy against other nuclear powers and in certain political or geographical circumstances.What good is your army and soldiers if any large concentration of them burns in hell and their famillies in the city burn with them. If you had a choice for Poland would you rather have nukes with the same capability as the US arsenal, OR would you rather Poland have the same conventional army as the United States? The nukes are more useful for you to ensure your eternal security a conventional army is more useful for enforcing demands and creating an empire/sphere of influence.
Did nukes help Russia keep Chechnya?
Did nukes help UK keep Falklands?
Did India retake Kargil with nukes?