[quote=Vilageidiotx]
And don't mistake movies for reality, my young friend. It's not a simple as big-bad-evil guys cackling on mountain tops, with their bottomless bank accounts and endless supply of lackies who don't need food or shelter. The real world is about economics first, especially when talking about geopolitics. The Soviet Union fell to our economy, not to our military, and that was at a time when they had virtually no financial connections beyond the iron curtain.
[/quote]

[Img]http://i58.tinypic.com/2aeuptk.png[/img]

Suppose I grant the premise. Let's say the end of trade would annihilate both nations. So basically, functional nukes, with all the same theory involved. As evidenced by Korea, enormous conflicts between allies of nuclear states and nuclear states are still possible. Take the Kargil War

Or, like Korea. North Korea didn't care about Nukes.

[quote] You do realize that WW1 was entirely about Russia and had jack to do with France or Britain's politics? Germany was threatened by the Russians who were starting to develop their industry which when combined with their superior man power would have made them stronger than anyone else in Europe. This caused Germany to launch a pre-emptive offensive called the Schlieffen plan that involved a quick occupation of France by invading through neutral Belgium. This was done to avoid having to confront France and Russia at the same time on two fronts as the two had close ties at the time. Germany didn't realize that the invasion of neutral Belgium would drag Britain into the war[/quote]

Britain didn't have to join. If the interdependency was a nuke like Village idiot says, then they wouldn't have.