Swingman wrote:

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.

How soon we ****ing forget ...

Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we ****ing forget, it's that we ****ing
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.

I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.

But my original question has not been answered.
Please define "success" in the context of the original
statement HeyBub made.