(November 24, 2010 at 3:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: There was plenty of 'hot' in the cold war korea, vietnam and dozens of african natians saw fighting between the capitalists and the commies.
And not forgetting the ongoing conflicts in the Middle east which both sides were quite happy to supply weapons to.
Since the two superpowers(Britain and France didn't count) were understandably reluctant to face off directly(with the escalation that would've entailed) they resorted to supporting and(I suspect) positively encouraging if not actually starting these little brushfire wars.
Presumably with the dual intentions of trying out their toys and testing the mettle and resolve of the opposition.
And although much suffering and destruction was suffered in these "little" wars it was nothing compared to what would have resulted in a full on conventional conflict.
Remembering that the US alone dropped more ordnance on Vietnam in seven years than dropped by ALL the combatants in ALL the theatres of the Second World War.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.