Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

  1. I mean, at least he wasn't being chased by a giant killer rabbit.
    1
  2.  @Healermain15  So a hypothetical war in which one side is the EU doesn't count as a war?
    1
  3. Everyone knows that it was the vile Hun and his villainous empire building that led to WW1!
    1
  4. God made men, Sam Colt made men equal.
    1
  5. Well, after a while it would be thousands and thousands of little pretty fires.
    1
  6. Just imagine how different history would be if the Yankees had signed Fidel.
    1
  7.  @spartacus-olsson  I agree, but I would add in brief that the concept of being English was probably much more a thing in 1066 than the concept of being French.
    1
  8.  @spartacus-olsson  Okay. :-)
    1
  9. Probably less that than the filming of The Conqueror on the nuclear test sites - that movie killed quite a few of the people who worked on it.
    1
  10. Sure, but in five years Trump will be gone, but we'll (hopefully) still have a democracy.
    1
  11. The Japanese destroyer was doing 25 knots or more when they collided and didn't stop or turn back. It was in a hurry to get back to Rabaul before daylight brought the threat of American air attack. It was pretty obvious to them that the PT boat had been completely destroyed.
    1
  12. Because you're not looking at the larger strategic context in which the missiles were deployed. That's okay, neither is Indy. The US missiles were seen as a deterrent to the Soviets from using their massive superiority in conventional weapons and troops to launch an invasion of western Europe - a conventional force that NATO couldn't hope to match in the 1940s or 50s. It was a stalemate: the Soviets could easily win a conventional war in Europe, but they didn't dare start one for fear of nuclear retaliation, so neither side had anything to gain by starting a war. But if the Soviets could retaliate with their own nuclear strike, that meant neither side dared use nuclear weapons, which in turn meant that NATO had no practical means to either deter or defeat a massive Soviet conventional attack. So the weapons in Cuba were dangerous because they gave the Soviets a free hand to launch a massive conventional attack if they chose, which made war much more likely. In the long run that strategic balance shifted anyway as the Soviets developed more ICBMs and SLBMs that made a US nuclear attack on the USSR unthinkable, so the US and NATO had to beef up their conventional forces in Europe and elsewhere and look to other strategies (like shorter-ranged tactical nukes that might be used without provoking an ICBM exchange) to deter a conventional attack. And that process had already started by 1962, but the Cuban missiles threatened to destabilize the situation faster than NATO could respond.
    1
  13.  @LiamE69  DETERRENT. Not precisely the same as defensive. The USSR's defense was its massive superiority in conventional forces. They balanced each other out, but Soviet missiles in Cuba threatened to upset that balance and thus destabilize the situation. Are you actually too stupid to understand that, or just pretending to be?
    1
  14.  @SpartanThe300th  You are making the same error of ignoring the larger strategic context. Nuclear weapons did not exist in a vacuum.
    1