David, you believe many common claims that Ayn Rand questioned as deeply as she challenged the ethical and political assumptions of her time. Objectivism teaches that no contradictions exist in reality. If you find a contradiction in what you "know" to be true, then one or both assumptions must be false. That is a truth from logic. It is not something that Ayn Rand just made up.

So, applying that to this case, the theory says that muscle-mystics cannot be as efficacious as free people -- granted that a looter can act first, harm others, gain loot, and look successful. With no contradiction possible between theory and practice (logic and reality), it is not surprising that the Nazis _ABANDONED_ their nuclear fission project. First, almost all of the physicists capable of the work had fled and come to America. Those left behind - Heisenberg, Meitner, some others - were (a) insufficient to do the work and (b) not willing to work with a gun to their head and (c) further marginalized by the Nazi government (Meitner was Jewish).,

As for the Cold War, the USSR only gained anything that the USA delivered to them, from trucks to the atomic bomb. Ultimately, it is not true that the USSR had hundreds of missiles ready to launch. The First Gulf War showed how inept they were at building such advanced weaponry. Very few Scud missiles came close to their targets. Many disintegrated in flight. That was because so many USSR technicians were so drunk for so long while on the job. That was the case - is the case - in the history of the USSR: some few might be ideologically motivated, but most just escaped internally from a horrible, inhumane system. They could not feed themselves. Fighting World War Three was unfathomable. Maybe, they could have invaded 100 km into western Europe on the first thrust. Maybe France would have surrendered (of course). But, agains the USA, they did not have a chance.

Your claim that Italy was a threat to the USA is completely groundless. Can you provide any substantiation? Italy could not even conquer Greece without help from Germany. They did conquer Ethiopia. They were stalemated in their engagements in Spain during that civil war.

This is controversial, even here, but Japan did not attack the USA "on our own soil." The Philippines and Hawaii were distant colonies. You grew up with non-stop jet aircraft; so you think that Hawaii and the Philippines are close. They were not. And they were not our soil. The USA took over the Kingdom of Hawaii no less than if it had been the Kingdom of Denmark. The Philippines were war booty no less that if we had taken the Congo from Belgium. More to the point, the USA had sent its own mercenaries into China, the Flying Tigers, to fight against Japan. The USA declared de facto war on Japan first. After all, we had the New Deal. Roosevelt was just an American form of socialism or fascism; and we know that those lead to war; and we know why.

Just because someone declares war on you does not mean that is a credible threat. Germany had only a sparse navy and no aircraft carriers. They were not coming here. (Read about the Graf Spee and the Bismarck.)

Friedrich Steinhoff commanded the U-boot that was supposed to fire a rocket at New York City. It was a joke. They were serious, just incompetent. That myth of German efficiency might apply if it came from IG Farben or Daimler-Benz or Carl Zeiss, but the Nazi state was so self-destructive that nothing they tried worked. The tests at Peenemuende for the U-boot rocket _failed_.

You accept the easy claims that the USSR could have faced down the USA over the Cuban Missile Crisis and engaged in a nuclear war. Why did they did not? Was it because Khrushchev "came to his senses" while Kennedy remained a "madman"? In 1960, the NATO alliance allowed the USA to put missiles in Turkey that could strike the USSR. When the USSR sought parity via Cuban bases, the USA said no. Russia backed down. Again, was it because Khrushchev was a true humanitarian who would not sacrifice millions of innocent lives? Or was it because the USSR's threat was a bluff, which the USA called?

Here's a bonus question: why did the Nazi Germans not invade Switzerland?

I agree that the Nazi Germans were a threat and a danger and a serious harm to the Czechs, Danes, and others. The took back the Rheinland from France. They had game ... but they were still in the same position as the USSR which took Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and half of Poland, but were stopped by Finland. Indeed, the Swiss stopped the Germans. I can post a link or a copy of a famous speech by a Swiss general: when you run out of ammunition, use your bayonet and do not believe any order from the capital city to surrender. The Germans did not even try to take on Switzerland.