1. Nato strategy wasn't based on the idea that they were stronger force (They didn't have the experience of the the second gulf war). Essentially it was based on stopping the Soviet Elchon system of attacks. With the various categories (A,B,C and D) overlapping and providing a continuous attack. It was theorised that they would only be able to survive the onslaught for two weeks. It was a strategy based upon the idea that Soviet top line equipment had some sort of parity with Western equipment. It was not a strategy formulated on what you postulate. I suggest some reading in the area.
2. Ever heard of the elite panzer divisions????? Some of the best formations with the best equipment and men of their time. They could barely get to the D-day landings because they were constantly being attacked by allied aircraft.
3. Oh and where is this money gonna come from, to gain at least some kinda parity?
4. For every tank Pakistan gets to allow this i am sure India will buy three or four. they have a much larger economy. and your theory depends on one thing India doing nothing (I am sure they are gonna do that...(note this is sarcasm here))
5. Well the strike on Pearl harbour was essentially a failure because of admiral Nagumo's failure to send a second strike into Pearl harbour.
6. It was a failure because it didn't get the carriers. after Coral sea (A draw btw)
7. Oh and I forgot something....they lost and they lost big..............they received the only nuclear weapons fired in anger.
8. Want another aggressive "risky" strategy? Operation Barberossa. Not gonna explain that one I suggest you look it up.
9. Yes Tanks are good weapons when they have good Air,Infantry and artillery support. Otherwise they are just chunks of metal. (This is the point i was making originally)
1. The combined economy of NATO was larger than the Soviet economy by a multiple of three. The economies of Western Germany, France and Britian were massive. Even if Western Germany crumbled and France fell, Britian and U.S. would have enough time to convert their economies to a war footing by which time the Soviets would have been on borrowed time. Also, France wouldnt have just tipped over like a dying horse.
2. If the German army wasnt split in facing the rumbling Red Army on its East the D-day landing would have been a total catastrophe.
3. From the exisiting military budget.
4. Your thinking is wrong, if it was in India's interests to have so many tanks why wouldnt it have purchased them already? In Pak. case it was constrained by weak economy in the past (due to sanctions) and now this purchase of compromised F-16's.
5. What exactly would this second strike have done? The damage was done, sending in more strikes would have just increased attrition of Japanese aircraft and pilots which would be needed against upcoming battle of the carriers.
6. All the Carriers along with all the other ships just sitting there to be sunk would be a bit of a tall ask dont you say?
7. They took a gamble, you are just looking at the loss and not the potential gain. It was a mistake for them to go to war, but when the decision to go to war was made their AC's ensured they had a good as possible chance at victory.
8. Risky for the party that is on the back foot or weaker position, a situation where both seek ever riskier strategies cant be an equilibria. Germany wasnt on the backfoot then, it didnt have to invade Russia, it could have played it safe, hung on to the gains in France parried with Britian, swept across Nothern Africa prepared for assualt like Normany, a million things other than invading Russia they could have done from their then relative position of strength.
9. Yep, those falling apart Mig-21's are real tank busters.