Oh, we did try, Raoul. But I know you’re speaking of a full military move against him.

A failed military attack pressed against the Soviet Union in the post WW II days would have been crippling for the globe, and would have sent the U.N. into a tailspin. The U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. were both at their strongest, and the only sure method of taking on Soviet Union would have been through covert insurgents (and we did have those -- which failed to take out Stalin). Strategies employed were still very new, and operatives did not always “fit in.”.

Military strategies, on the other hand, demand great numbers, either in manpower, or technology, with both requiring the propagation of “leaked” data to the enemies. The chosen enemy must be inundated with fronts. They have to be surrounded and overwhelmed, with no quarter given and a constant press forward from your forces.

You have a greater risk of losing if you are out numbered, and glory can only be enjoyed by the survivors.

Every operational change requires a new strategic look, and for a military to win without having to fire a single shot is a godsend to the strategists. While cannon-fodder is easy to come by, they’re difficult to keep happy, and a happy military is a winning military -- or an idle one...

Dan