No, that would be stupid, they would turn to simp for China or Russia as soon as you let them, like Iraqi Shia and Sunni started simping for their respective Islamists, which would be an equal, or perhaps worse variation on the same problem Iran is now.Ok let’s use Iran as an example let’s say we get into a war with Iran and beat it and we decide to weaken Iran so it can never be strong again. So we go to prisons and take the communists that Irans theocracy locked up and we put them into power with a treaty that limits their military. Would you still simp for that?
That's more of a change of system of governance tbh.Are you illiterate? I never said that changing Japan’s culture was all bad. I’m not a pure isolationist making the emperor not a god was a good thing. BUT it was a change of their culture. That’s a fact you are the one who is distracting or deflecting it instead of saying yes.
The West changed all the world's cultures more or less, besides some isolated stone age tribes.
They provoked US trade embargo with their moves in SEA and China, two can play the muh provocation game. In the end, they called themselves an empire and for a reason.I mean while the Japs did fire the first shot it’s not like America wasn’t provoking them with a trade embargo.
Nope, you are plain wrong. Plenty of embargoes in history never resulted in a war.Pretty much any nation would have attacked if it was embargoed like that.
Their actions in China and SEA, even if they were never evil, would still be a provocation against the US. If you think Japan has the right to do such things, then why doesn't USA have the right to embargo Japan?Of course then you can argue that Japan deserved the embargo because of their evil actions in China. But still better to be intellectual and informed then just spout buzzwords and “they attack us!”
Your threat recognition is bad then.What is the relevance here? I’m not wilfully isolationist if there is an actual threat.
Any politics at all in any area involve some kind and degree of arm twisting by that definition, but you still can't bullshit that they weren't asked.Yet you do realize that those nations are having their arms twisted to accept the newcomers in. It’s not “Oh yeah decide if you are cool with these guys joining the club no pressure whichever way you vote is ok.”
Japan was building an empire and provoking USA because their military leadership wanted to get get into the world war, i too can use this silly logic, see?But you did change the culture from the emperor to the aristocracy to giving women the vote.
And again they attacked because of embargo’s because FDR wanted to get into the world war.
Counterpoint: tactical nukes. Nukes aren't the pop cultural "end of the world" weapon. Confusion, counter force strikes, rebellions, wrong priorities, incompetence etc can make it into a very unpredictable and chaotic scenario where surviving conventional armies will still very much matter.You are the one who does not seem to understand military strategy. If there is a war between NATO and Russia conventional forces won’t matter for long so where those troops clash isn’t important. Because if two nuclear powers clash then nukes will fly, unless one backs down. If France has nukes and Russia invaded it the. France will nuke Moscow. If France has nukes and Russia invades Germany but there is no NATO then why would France want to nuke Moscow when Paris will be nuked. A Frenchman should care about Paris more than Berlin.
You have only half of the truism. Nuclear powers cannot be defeated, but they can be destroyed. Make sure to fully consider the second part that you have missed.Being a nuclear power guarantees your sovereignty, no nation will be able to invade and occupy you. So why risk your own destruction for others it sucks for them sure but nuclear borders are inviolate.