[Alberta's Child]

Go read all the subsequent comments about that statement here on this thread. The situations you describe are not the same -- the U.S. did not have thousands of troops "staring nose-to-nose at the Russians" with the intention of invading the Soviet Union, and the U.S. had no intention of leaving those troops stationed around Iraq for 40 years, either.

Incidentally, nuclear arms are a whole different story because "proximity" to a threat like this doesn't mean much in an age when ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. put everyone on the planet in "proximity" to weapons of mass destruction.

[ought-six]

"Incidentally, nuclear arms are a whole different story because "proximity" to a threat like this doesn't mean much in an age when ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. put everyone on the planet in "proximity" to weapons of mass destruction."

You've obviously never served in the military. Low-yield tactical nukes were very common (no need for ballistic missiles for those, as they can be fired by such mundane delivery systems as howitzers). Also, the Russians had chemical weapons in Berlin (as did we up until the 1980s).