Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like we are not too off in our thinking I agree with many of your points. Here is where I disagree:
I dont think the Soviets considered themselves becoming neutered as a military power. The Soviets enjoyed a huge conventianal weapon superiority of the United States which included twice as many tanks and planes. The Soviets after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the overthrow of Krushev increased their military spending tremendously in the 1960s and 1970s and had a clear advantage over the USA in nukes by the late 1970s.
It really didn't matter how many nukes each possessed in say 1980 and who had more. The two had long surpassed the ability to independently destroy the entire planet a few times over. Building more missiles and bombs was almost anachronistic. Kind of like how we have "disarmed" to a state where we can still only destroy the entire planet before you can watch an entire episode of Family Guy. That was the irony of the arms reduction treaties. They allowed both sides to symbolically work together to do something that seemed positive while not really doing anything to impact eithers true ability.
As for conventional weapons, it really didn't matter how many tanks and planes the Soviet Union had. NATO ultimately fielded just as many forces as the Soviet Union and NATO was rapidly reshaping its forces to take advantage of technology to act as a force multiplier. It didn't matter if the Soviets had a 5:1 advantage in tanks when each western tank was worth 5 Soviet ones. The US introduced two radical new armored vehicles in 1980 and 1981; the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. These were light years ahead of their Soviet counterparts in terms of force multiplication. Of course, no one on either side thought that there would actually ever be a conventional war to be fought between the two powers.
That's where Soviet fears over SDI came in. They were absolutely afraid of the technical edge the US had gained over the Soviet Union. If SDI worked then the Soviets strategic position was undermined. The US would have the ability to choose to use or not use nukes in a conflict without fear of retaliation. SDI was a central issue at the 1985 Geneva and 1986 Reykjavik conferences. At Reykjavik, the Soviets practically offered the farm in exchange for the US dropping SDI.
Quote:
Soviet spending remained constant according to CIA estimates that were used to shape US policy in the 1980's and actually went slightly down in the second half.
If spending remained constant, then it went up as a percentage of GDP which is what put the strain on the economy. If you noticed, I did not quote a spending number in dollars, but a percentage of GDP spending. As Soviet GDP and revenues stagnated and declined in the 1980's, the Soviets maintained their high levels of military spending. In order to do that, they had to sacrifice other areas of their economy, notably domestic consumer products. The US had to make no such trade-off.
It's like if you made $4,000 a month and spent $1,500 on rent and the rest on food, utilities and entertainment. Suddenly you take a pay cut and are only making $3,500. You choose to continue renting the $1,500 a month apartment, but that means that rent now consumes a much larger percentage of your income and you need to cut back in other areas. The total spent on rent stays the same, the amount it relatively costs you has gone up a lot.
Additionally, no one, apparently not even the Soviets themselves really knew how much the defense budget was...
The Reagan buildup was a not a plan to bankrupt the Soviets because they began on that path decades earlier when Reagan was still giving speeches on behalf of GM. Instead, according one top Reagan cabinet member Al Haig it was a reaction to the massive Soviet buildup of the 1960s and 70s. The Reagan administration felt in the early 80's it did not have leverage at the negotiation table wth the Soviets.
Exactly, Reagan's buildup was done to increase the US posture from "containment" to "oppostion". The change in philosophy and approach is now known as the "Reagan Doctrine". The increasing of US military spending, application of new technologies, hits on the Soviet economy, the bellicose rhetoric; all were part of a concerted effort to apply pressure to the Soviet Union when they could least effectively respond...and it worked.
Quote:
To his credit, Reagan admitted he cut taxes to deeply in 1981 and raised taxes multiple times in the 1980's to get to reasonable deficits in later years.
However, his "tax raises" were not percentage raises, they were "base broadening". I suppose it is technically the same thing, but it impacts people very differently.
Quote:
In terms of tax cuts, here my problem. Broad based cuts do not work efficiently. Tax cuts only work if they are spent, hopefuly wisely. So if someone keeps them under the mattress or spends them oversea, it does not work. But they still got the cut and it added to the deficit. There are better multipliers to the economy than tax cuts and military speending. For example, education is one.
...and here we end with what comes down to a difference of opinion. I trust the American citizen more with their own money then I do in the government choosing what to invest it in. There are certain things that are absolutely the domain of government, but by and large I believe that the government should be operated as leanly as possible and people given the greatest degree of freedom to choose what to spend their money on. Perhaps people will not spend the money "wisely" per Keynes, but the government has proven time and again it is not terribly good at spending money wisely either.
Ultimately though I think we would both agree that additional spending or tax cuts is not wise when it is being done in face of a deficit. The books should be balanced first. Of course, in the case of Reagan, the growth of the economy easily paid for the tax cuts, it was the military buildup that was impossible to pay for.
Hasn't worked. Spending per kid was $4,000 in 1970; $12,000 now. Areas that spend the most, like Washington DC, sometimes get the poorest results.
"Increasing spending for education so that our children can....blah, blah" is a politicians game. When they increase the funds the school boards build a bigger football stadium, and larger offices for themselves.
While there is some truth to this, 1970 predates PL 94-142, so it's not really fair to compare spending directly.
It really didn't matter how many nukes each possessed in say 1980 and who had more. The two had long surpassed the ability to independently destroy the entire planet a few times over. Building more missiles and bombs was almost anachronistic. Kind of like how we have "disarmed" to a state where we can still only destroy the entire planet before you can watch an entire episode of Family Guy. That was the irony of the arms reduction treaties. They allowed both sides to symbolically work together to do something that seemed positive while not really doing anything to impact eithers true ability.
As for conventional weapons, it really didn't matter how many tanks and planes the Soviet Union had. NATO ultimately fielded just as many forces as the Soviet Union and NATO was rapidly reshaping its forces to take advantage of technology to act as a force multiplier. It didn't matter if the Soviets had a 5:1 advantage in tanks when each western tank was worth 5 Soviet ones. The US introduced two radical new armored vehicles in 1980 and 1981; the M1 Abrams main battle tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. These were light years ahead of their Soviet counterparts in terms of force multiplication. Of course, no one on either side thought that there would actually ever be a conventional war to be fought between the two powers.
That's where Soviet fears over SDI came in. They were absolutely afraid of the technical edge the US had gained over the Soviet Union. If SDI worked then the Soviets strategic position was undermined. The US would have the ability to choose to use or not use nukes in a conflict without fear of retaliation. SDI was a central issue at the 1985 Geneva and 1986 Reykjavik conferences. At Reykjavik, the Soviets practically offered the farm in exchange for the US dropping SDI.
If spending remained constant, then it went up as a percentage of GDP which is what put the strain on the economy. If you noticed, I did not quote a spending number in dollars, but a percentage of GDP spending. As Soviet GDP and revenues stagnated and declined in the 1980's, the Soviets maintained their high levels of military spending. In order to do that, they had to sacrifice other areas of their economy, notably domestic consumer products. The US had to make no such trade-off.
It's like if you made $4,000 a month and spent $1,500 on rent and the rest on food, utilities and entertainment. Suddenly you take a pay cut and are only making $3,500. You choose to continue renting the $1,500 a month apartment, but that means that rent now consumes a much larger percentage of your income and you need to cut back in other areas. The total spent on rent stays the same, the amount it relatively costs you has gone up a lot.
Additionally, no one, apparently not even the Soviets themselves really knew how much the defense budget was...
Exactly, Reagan's buildup was done to increase the US posture from "containment" to "oppostion". The change in philosophy and approach is now known as the "Reagan Doctrine". The increasing of US military spending, application of new technologies, hits on the Soviet economy, the bellicose rhetoric; all were part of a concerted effort to apply pressure to the Soviet Union when they could least effectively respond...and it worked.
However, his "tax raises" were not percentage raises, they were "base broadening". I suppose it is technically the same thing, but it impacts people very differently.
...and here we end with what comes down to a difference of opinion. I trust the American citizen more with their own money then I do in the government choosing what to invest it in. There are certain things that are absolutely the domain of government, but by and large I believe that the government should be operated as leanly as possible and people given the greatest degree of freedom to choose what to spend their money on. Perhaps people will not spend the money "wisely" per Keynes, but the government has proven time and again it is not terribly good at spending money wisely either.
Ultimately though I think we would both agree that additional spending or tax cuts is not wise when it is being done in face of a deficit. The books should be balanced first. Of course, in the case of Reagan, the growth of the economy easily paid for the tax cuts, it was the military buildup that was impossible to pay for.
Let me say that it was Soviet military doctrine and also that of the Czars that quantity trumps quality. Soviets accepted that they would lack quality weapons and training when facing the West but would always have a quantitative edge. The Warsaw Pact battle plan had their armies destroy NATO in matter of weeks through nukes and large quantities of tanks, artillery and jets. The confidence of this plan stayed the same until the mid 1980s. I don't believe they viewed any American conventional weapons as game changers during that time. When they changed the plan in 1985 and 1986 it was because they realized modern warfare was changing and new tactics would be needed. It had nothing to do with Reagan, weapons inferiority, Or SDI. SDI was not at all a possibility. The technology was not there.
Last edited by jobseeker2013; 01-03-2014 at 08:11 PM..
Let me say that it was Soviet military doctrine and also that of the Czars that quantity trumps quality. Soviets accepted that they would lack quality weapons and training when facing the West but would always have a quantitative edge. The Warsaw Pact battle plan had their armies destroy NATO in matter of weeks through nukes and large quantities of tanks, artillery and jets. The confidence of this plan stayed the same until the mid 1980s. I don't believe they viewed any American conventional weapons as game changers during that time. When they changed the plan in 1985 and 1986 it was because they realized modern warfare was changing and new tactics would be needed. It had nothing to do with Reagan, weapons inferiority, Or SDI. SDI was not at all a possibility. The technology was not there.
I've laid it out several times, but your arguments show a lack of understanding Soviet doctrine relative to that of the US at the time. Your argument that SDI didn't matter because it wasn't technologically feasible is what is written in the past decade or so by liberal critics of Reagan's policies. It is not what the Soviets, Reagan Administration or the US military viewed it as at the time. This paper from the Air Force War College, written at the time by professors, explains Soviet doctrine and what their responses are both immediate and possibly long term.
At the end of the day, the Soviets always viewed themselves to be in a position where they achieved defensive security for their homeland via a strong offensive component. The Soviet view was that they were locked in an ideological war that they would eventually win. However, winning required maintaining their offensive capability. For a long time the US played into that position by "containment" and keeping a largely defensive posture. Reagan's arms buildup both strategic and tactical in combination with SDI was a game changer in the eyes of the Soviets. The US, they believed, would rapidly gain the ability to deliver a first strike without fear of response. A first strike would undermine their ability to launch an offensive, thus undermining the entire Soviet strategic plan and the parity they had achieved with the US. The conventional weapons that were deployed placed an exclamation mark on the technological prowess and edge the US had gained and it shocked the Soviets to their core.
These debates are obviously subjective.. but for me, Washington is the greatest president (going away).
Earlier posters made a good case for Washington, so I'll just add this postscript, My dad used to say about Washington, 'He could've been king, but he said no kings..'
(big-ups for exercising power with restraint & authentic public service..)
This thread has been dead for a while, so I'll give an update on who city data thinks are the best 7 presidents in the US.
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Reagan
7. Eisenhower
For anyone wondering, this is very similar to my top seven. although I did not include Reagan or Lincoln. JFK, who is eighth according to city data, made my list.
I humbly suggest this is one of the best polls I've seen on CD.
If you haven't yet voted, do so and keep it alive so we get
a big sample. Over 200 participants !
This thread has been dead for a while, so I'll give an update on who city data thinks are the best 7 presidents in the US.
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Teddy Roosevelt
6. Reagan
7. Eisenhower
For anyone wondering, this is very similar to my top seven. although I did not include Reagan or Lincoln. JFK, who is eighth according to city data, made my list.
Keep the votes coming!
Here is my list, with brief explanation:
1. Lincoln--easily best
2. Eisenhower--the interstates, ending the Korean War, measured foreign policy, support for desegregating the military, support for educational desegregation, a string of excellent appointments to the Supreme Court; Eisenhower's excellence did not come with a bang--this was a quietly excellent President, aided by the lack of extreme moral stains that other candidates for this list had.
3. T. Roosevelt--antitrust success, Panama Canal, National Parks, appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.; main drawbacks--more than a little fascist, sadly comfortable with eugenics
4. FDR--after Lincoln (and maybe Jefferson), maybe the most transformational President in history. The New Deal, WWII, the appointment of maybe the most staggering lineup of Justices: Black, Frankfurter, Jackson, Douglas, Rutledge, Murphy, Reed; the drawbacks: Japanese internment during WWII, allowing substantial racist policies into the New Deal (especially surrounding housing policies)
5. Jefferson--two words: Louisiana Purchase; why not higher? Complicity in slavery, architect of Indian removal
6. Washington--he, frankly, gets in for the Revolution more than his Presidency. His greatest contribution as President was neutrality in foreign policy.
7. Sadly, it's tough to pick a 7th due to a dearth of truly great Presidents. I'll take John Quincy Adams for now, primarily based on his foreign policy achievements. In 10-15 years, I project this to be Obama's spot.
I'm surprised how high FDR gets rated. His economic ideas were a total disaster but he was a good wartime president. He stayed too long and never should have run for that 4th term.
I'm surprised how high FDR gets rated. His economic ideas were a total disaster but he was a good wartime president. He stayed too long and never should have run for that 4th term.
It is not an overstatement to say that we all live in the shadow of FDR's New Deal. You may dislike FDR, but surely you would agree that his administration impacted the nation far beyond 90% of all Presidents.
While tangential to the greatness of a Presidency, I'm curious why you think his economic ideas were a total disaster. He took office in the depths of the Great Depression. Is it because you fundamentally oppose the labor rights enshrined in those policies? Is it because you attribute the record economic growth in FDR's first term to factors other than economic policy? Is it because you oppose the influence of federal government on the economy, or the existence of federal social programs?
In short, the FDR-era economic policy was transformational. Social Security, minimum wage, prohibitions on child labor, and federal regulation of diverse industries are legacies of the FDR administration.
As for FDR's length in office, he certainly broke with tradition in becoming a 4 term President (which is no longer possible due to constitutional amendment). But he completed important foreign policy missions in that fourth term, including the Yalta conference and forming the foundation of the U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship. His fourth election was probably also important for the active role of the United States in shaping and participating in the United Nations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with many of your points. Here is where I disagree:
