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.
False. In the late 1968s a Soviet economist named Andrei Amerik got life sentence in the Gulag because he wrote a book (Samidatz) entitled "Will the USSR exist in 1984?' he used Marxist theory to argue that nationalist tensions, increasing alienation, abuse of Vodka, dovoting 40-60% of the Soviet GDP on military programs in a futile attempt to keep up with the United States which only spent 4-6% on similar programs and had vastly more larger economic base to compete wit the USSR if it chose to say double it s military spending. Toss in the fact the Soviet economy actually ceased to grow by the early 1970s and was falling further behind the West each year and it was clear to Andrei the USSR was not long for this World and he said so in 1968 13 years before Ronald Reagan was sworn in as US President in 1981. Andrei was only 7 years off in his pronostication which in the Futurism business is almost the equivalent of shooting an Eagle in Golf.
Gosh, how insightful. A random person no one has heard of predicted the collapse of the SU.
Gosh, how insightful. A random person no one has heard of predicted the collapse of the SU.
There were very few that predicted the demise of the USSR in the 1980's. I was in my 20's at the time, and being of German descent I recall being shocked at the re-unification of East and West Germany. I never expected to see that in my lifetime.
Hindsight being 20/20 libs now say that it was inevitable. They have one problem though: virtually none of them predicted the demise.
The conventional wisdom right up to 1989 was that the USSR was stable and strong. Ronald Reagan was decidedly not conventional.
The All Union Academy of Sciences of the USSR within a few months of Reagan's SDI speech told the Politiboro that the program was a bluff and couldn't be built with US technology because it violated physics. American Physicists who prepared a report in 1986 for the American Physical Society that came to the same conclusion as well. Now the Soviets being their paranoid selves decided to take what they did have and accelerate Glusko's Energyia Heavy Lift Booster to launch a series or orbital battle stations unmanned or manned if need be. These would be space going equivalent of hunter-killer submarines and since the Soviets found that a simple modification of the gun they used on Mig and Sukhoi jet fighters would make it usable in space. They had in hand a effective weapon to wipe out the US Space Shuttle, all our reconissance satellites and even take out weather satellites. So all that would remain are the comsats to deal with to render US forces blind, mute and deaf as well. The space battlestations had a missle derived from their most advanced SAM system the S-300 to knock out enough of the comsats to break most US comlinks except old 1050s style radio and if avaiable subsea cables.
No. The Soviets had nowhere near the computer and communications capability to locate and target orbital objects accurately from other orbital objects. The US did, however, which was TOP SECRET compartmented NRO information until it was revealed following the Columbia shuttle disaster.
You're also severely underestimating the number of US satellites. And it has been possible for over 30 years for the US to replace its military reconnaissance and communications satellites with sufficient battle capability within a few hours.
The fact that Reagan convinced the USSR (or did a hell of a ssles job) by implying that his 'star wars' defense was a reality (something which the Soviets could never have tried to duplicate without torpedoing their own wobbly economy) was flat-out brilliant.
Once he corrected all of Carter's economic blunders (including 18% mortgage rates) with Volcker and had the US economy humming within three years after taking office, which resulted the creation of over 1,000,000 jobs in a single month (October 1983) as the WSJ pointed out.
That of course is a number which Obama could never hope to match given his 'green jobs' addiction and other economic nonsense, as well as using the DOJ & Employment Prevention Agency to devastate our economy and continue the Democratic Party's multi-decade assault on the middle class, which continues unabated with no end in sight, with plenty of help from Schumer, Reid & all the other uber-liberals out there.
A major catalyst for the breakup of the Soviet Union was the first Iraq War. The Iraqi military had primarily Soviet made weapons and training and was considered the most powerful military in the region. Before the war started, there were predictions, especially by the Soviets, that the Americans and coalition forces would face a long and brutal war. That didn't happen. The Iraqi military was trounced.
The Iraq War showed how far Soviet military technology had fallen behind. The belief in Soviet military might was badly shaken by the sight of overwhelming American and coalition military superiority. Many of the Soviet Republics lost faith in the power of the Soviet Union.
In this way, Reagan did help bring down the Soviet Union. It was his belief in a powerful military that led to our advancement of weaponry and the large size our military.
Regarding SDI, the Soviets knew it would take 20-30 years to even have a working system at best. That wasn't really the point though. They didn't have the money to ramp up the arms race even further. Gorbechev tried to tie SDI's removal (or at a minimum keep it in the labs) to arms reduction talks. It's well known now that Reagan refused that deal and instead increased spending on it. To Reagan that showed a weakness and it showed how much SDI actually meant to the Soviets regardless of their own assessments about how long it would take to be implemented.
To Reagan's cabinet it meant a means to an end but to Reagan it meant something more. While Reagan's cabinet thought once they got a deal they could abandon SDI but Reagan never intended that. Reagan saw SDI as a means to end all wars. After all, that idea was originated by Tesla when he came up with the idea nearly half a century before 1983.
Public debt was 35% of GDP and he essentially took over an economy that was as bad if not worse than what Obama got. Obama's deficits made Reagan's look like small change compared to GDP. Yet you'll no doubt not say one word about Obama's deficits.
Government deficits are not necessarily bad. Reagan's was not bad, neither is Obama's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101
The fact that Reagan convinced the USSR (or did a hell of a ssles job) by implying that his 'star wars' defense was a reality (something which the Soviets could never have tried to duplicate without torpedoing their own wobbly economy) was flat-out brilliant.
Once he corrected all of Carter's economic blunders (including 18% mortgage rates) with Volcker and had the US economy humming within three years after taking office, which resulted the creation of over 1,000,000 jobs in a single month (October 1983) as the WSJ pointed out.
That of course is a number which Obama could never hope to match given his 'green jobs' addiction and other economic nonsense, as well as using the DOJ & Employment Prevention Agency to devastate our economy and continue the Democratic Party's multi-decade assault on the middle class, which continues unabated with no end in sight, with plenty of help from Schumer, Reid & all the other uber-liberals out there.
Raising interest rates was not an economic blunder. Raising the rates decreases inflation which would've been rampant if Carter had not done so. Reagan was also in office for the Black Monday market crash and the resulting recession.
Green jobs are not nonsense. The solar industry has grown exponentially since Obama enacted legislation to increase benefits and tax credits. It's not the Democratic Party that's eroding the middle class, it's the Republicans that lower taxes on the wealthy, making the middle class bear more of the weight. You, sir, fail basic economics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Regarding SDI, the Soviets knew it would take 20-30 years to even have a working system at best. That wasn't really the point though. They didn't have the money to ramp up the arms race even further. Gorbechev tried to tie SDI's removal (or at a minimum keep it in the labs) to arms reduction talks. It's well known now that Reagan refused that deal and instead increased spending on it. To Reagan that showed a weakness and it showed how much SDI actually meant to the Soviets regardless of their own assessments about how long it would take to be implemented.
To Reagan's cabinet it meant a means to an end but to Reagan it meant something more. While Reagan's cabinet thought once they got a deal they could abandon SDI but Reagan never intended that. Reagan saw SDI as a means to end all wars. After all, that idea was originated by Tesla when he came up with the idea nearly half a century before 1983.
SDI sounded good in theory, but would've likely caused World War 3. Without Mutually Assured Destruction, what would've stopped the US from launching a massive, pre-emptive strike on anyone it wants?
Last edited by NYRhockeyfan; 07-26-2014 at 11:00 AM..
Reagan's speech [announcing SDI] deeply shook the Soviets. Andropov, hospitalized at the time of the speech, summoned his top aides to his bedside, where he worried that Reagan's initiative might mean that "[t]he USSR will just stop being a superpower." Soviets said missile defense as Reagan describe it was not technically feasible, but Andoropov looked down the road:
"It looks like it can't be done now as such a system can be broken...Irrespective of the fact of whether the system is practicable or not, it is a real factor in today's U.S. policies. And we can't ignore it."
[b]Government deficits are not necessarily bad. Reagan's was not bad, neither is Obama's.
All deficits are not created equally. Stimulost was a waste of money. It temporarily created public sector jobs which summarily disappeared once the money stopped flowing. The massive deficits from "automatic stabilizers" did essentially the same thing. We paid people to do nothing and when the money stopped flowing they were still doing nothing but now they've been out of work for years on end and no one wants them. The jobs they were waiting for aren't coming back in their lifetime.
Reagan did essentially the opposite with his deficits. Much of his deficits went to defense spending which not only created new technologies today but it also empowered an entire subsection of the US economy, technology.
"Green" jobs don't create new jobs, they destroy old jobs. The entire "green" thing is a system based on using less resources and the results of that should be obvious to anyone that made it out of kindergarten.
Reagan did essentially the opposite with his deficits. Much of his deficits went to defense spending which not only created new technologies today but it also empowered an entire subsection of the US economy, technology.
No, Reagan created a wartime economy during peace. War economies create mostly low-paying manufacturing jobs, and Reagan's defense spending didn't create much new technology that could be applied in the private sector. Smoothbore tank cannons, Stinger missiles, and Chobham armor aren't very applicable to private uses. On the other hand, Obama's green jobs are high-paying jobs. Reagan could've used the defense spending on education that would've created higher-paying jobs and had a technological and innovation benefit as well.
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.
