If Ronald Reagan had not gone on an Arms Spending Binge?.

If Ronald Reagan had not gone on a Military spending Binge, would the USSR have still collapsed?.

Probably, although it might not have collapsed as quickly. Recovering from the economic malaise might have been more important, as that demoralized the Soviets (in the 1970s they could say that at least the capitalists were doing badly too). Afghanistan helped bleed them dry. And adopting a policy of détente at the end of his second term made it easier for Gorbachev to pursue glkasnost and perestroika.
 
Anyone have numbers handy that show the size of this spending binge for the decade?

Here, let's just say those who argue current defense spending has bankrupted us have a very short memory.

dod_.png
 
Thx jm. Thats less than I'd thought. Of course one has to look at that also in terms of what portion of the gross national cash flow, spending Domesitc Product or whatever useful metric. 26% may be huge, or next to nothing in terms of national wealth then. That 14% at the right end of the chart represents approx 3% of national GDP IIRC
 
Thx jm. Thats less than I'd thought. Of course one has to look at that also in terms of what portion of the gross national cash flow, spending Domesitc Product or whatever useful metric. 26% may be huge, or next to nothing in terms of national wealth then. That 14% at the right end of the chart represents approx 3% of national GDP IIRC

It was about 8% of GDP at its high point in the 80s and yes today it's about 3%.
 
Getting back to the OP the two economic trends that I reacall from the 1980s were: 1. the Federal deficit increased by tax reduction without the expected economic boom that was suposed to raise real tax revenues. That led to a return to higher taxes to reduce the deficit. I expect that one is a bit distorted from the reality.

2. Was the combined real estate bubble bust & stock market meltdown. The effects of that were obvious, painfully real, & fortunately were dealt with about as well as could be hoped. I'd been a carefull and low risk investor in the 1980s so I slid through relatively unscathed. But, from the wailing and rending of clothes my peers seemed to think it was the crash of 29 x2.
 
If Ronald Reagan had not gone on a Military spending Binge, would the USSR have still collapsed?.

Reagan's spending spree had almost zero impact on the Soviet course. The Soviets couldn't afford to keep up and they knew it (nor did they really need to - the balance of power was better for the Soviets in 1989 than it had been in 1969). So they didn't really bother. Just worked to avoid falling behind too far technologically, tried to make sure they couldn't be completely bowled over if the US attacked them and worked hard on diplomatic solutions - i.e. arms control, complaining about America's dangerous toys and showing off their toys (and implying that they had more toys than they really had).

The Soviet Union fell because of a brittle political system, resource exhaustion (they hit peak oil just before they fell) and poor investment choices in the 70s. These were exacerbated by an inefficient economy and the deep damage from WW2 and Stalin's purges which meant the Soviets had a shortage of clever manpower in the age cohorts between Brezhnev's generation and Gorbachev's generation (so the Union went straight from the hands of the senile to the hands of the inexperienced).

If Reagan had any impact, it was his other side - the eternal optimist who genuinely desired a nuclear-free world. That aspect of Reagan's personality allowed him to achieve a real rapport with Gorbachev and allowed Gorbachev to imagine he could really reduce the Soviet military to free resources for economic reform. But IMO, even that side of Reagan had minimal responsibility for the Soviet Union falling.

fasquardon
 
The Soviet Union fell because of a brittle political system, resource exhaustion (they hit peak oil just before they fell) and poor investment choices in the 70s. These were exacerbated by an inefficient economy and the deep damage from WW2 and Stalin's purges which meant the Soviets had a shortage of clever manpower in the age cohorts between Brezhnev's generation and Gorbachev's generation (so the Union went straight from the hands of the senile to the hands of the inexperienced).
fasquardon

Wow!

That is very concise and a good commentary. (The underlining and colorization are my doing. ;))

Joho :)
 
Wow!

That is very concise and a good commentary. (The underlining and colorization are my doing. ;))

Joho :)

I'm getting practiced at answering questions about Soviet AH.

Though the real important bit to underline is the resource exhaustion and the poor investment decisions. The sad truth is that it's pretty common for human societies fall apart when they encounter those two problems together.

fasquardon
 
I'm getting practiced at answering questions about Soviet AH.

Though the real important bit to underline is the resource exhaustion and the poor investment decisions. The sad truth is that it's pretty common for human societies fall apart when they encounter those two problems together.

fasquardon

Question: What were the poor investment choices that the USSR made?

Was it just the Helo-carriers?

Please, make a list if you have the time and inclination.

Thanks, fasquadron

Joho
:)
 
Let's be blunt. Democrats felt morally unqualified to lead the world in the 1970s, but were genuine in their desire to live in a world where everyone got along. The Republicans who came to the fore in the 1970s had no such qualms about America taking the lead in any area, but DAMN if they were going to turn over their wealth to the government. Reagan successfully ploughed through the Democratic opposition to his (mostly theoretical, partly logistical) embrace of martial culture because they lacked the nerve to seriously oppose him, and Republican voters let him push and push for new weapons, new programs, various interventions (Nicaragua, CIA games in the mid-east and Asia) because Reagan shook the triple threats of Communism, angry Muslims, and terrorism in their faces, so they paid up or at least let him have his way, because he, regardless of whether he was a secret liberal, or an idiot, or a puppet, or senile, MY GOD, he wasn't a Kennedy and he wasn't JIMMY CARTER (whom I personally liked, because he was a good man by all accounts, and really loved America, just didn't address it very well or in a way it wanted to be addressed)

If I sound emotional about the period, hey, I was a proud Liberal Democrat teenager mostly surrounded by proud wealthy Republicans. It wasn't history then. It was where I lived.
 
Question: What were the poor investment choices that the USSR made?

Was it just the Helo-carriers?

No. It wasn't the helo-carriers. Those probably would have proven their worth if the Cold War had continued.

In the 70s the Soviets made a string of bad choices:

1) They invested heavily in the oil industry (and imported expensive Western capital goods to exploit the Siberian oil faster) starving more useful industries of capital and producing "resource disease" that masked areas that needed reform until too late
2) They responded to the resource exhaustion of their Western territories by developing Siberian resources, thousands of km by rail from their industrial centers and their workforce. It would have been better to spend the money upgrading goods production technology so they could export manufactures and use the money to buy the raw materials on the world market (their ports, by contrast, were relatively close to their industrial centers).
3) They cut corners by trying to use new tools in old buildings, rather than building new factories to house their new tools. And of course, enterprise managers found that they didn't have the space to use the new tools, so they'd throw them in storage and keep on using the old tools.

Compared to these colossal blunders (and the massive mess of Soviet agricultural and food subsidies), the Soviet choices about military-industrial matters were not very significant.

JIMMY CARTER (whom I personally liked, because he was a good man by all accounts, and really loved America, just didn't address it very well or in a way it wanted to be addressed)

Carter was somewhat unlucky in becoming president when he did.

I think he is a greatly under-rated cold warrior.

fasquardon
 
The military spending binge was very important in getting jobs and government contracts to Reagan's supporters, and stimulus for the American economy. Reagan probably doesn't get re-elected without it.
 
The military spending binge was very important in getting jobs and government contracts to Reagan's supporters, and stimulus for the American economy. Reagan probably doesn't get re-elected without it.

I think G.O.V. has this right. But the one thing I remember that Reagan did with new weapons systems that got EVERYONE'S attention was the Polaris Missiles he wanted to put in Europe as a nuclear deterrent against a potential Russian invasion of Western Europe. The American public was unevenly divided maybe 2 to 1 in favor, but the Left (myself included) were very concerned with tripwire mentality and started the nuclear freeze movement. The European left went NUTS with fear, and anger. The Soviets realized there was no counter for such a move that was in their technological reach, and I think that was the time some Soviet apparachiks started contemplating whether a negotiated end to the Cold War would leave them able to retain power but have a more stable future, but in the short term, it put disarmament back on the table, which Gorbachev pushed and Reagan grabbed. The Trident Sub program and Star Wars program (SDI) were in the mix, yeah, at the level of Newsweek and Time Magazine, but I think it was Polaris that really made everybody sit up and think: Do we really want to keep carrying these risky, expensive nuclear umbrellas forever?
 
I think G.O.V. has this right. But the one thing I remember that Reagan did with new weapons systems that got EVERYONE'S attention was the Polaris Missiles he wanted to put in Europe as a nuclear deterrent against a potential Russian invasion of Western Europe. The American public was unevenly divided maybe 2 to 1 in favor, but the Left (myself included) were very concerned with tripwire mentality and started the nuclear freeze movement. The European left went NUTS with fear, and anger. The Soviets realized there was no counter for such a move that was in their technological reach, and I think that was the time some Soviet apparachiks started contemplating whether a negotiated end to the Cold War would leave them able to retain power but have a more stable future, but in the short term, it put disarmament back on the table, which Gorbachev pushed and Reagan grabbed. The Trident Sub program and Star Wars program (SDI) were in the mix, yeah, at the level of Newsweek and Time Magazine, but I think it was Polaris that really made everybody sit up and think: Do we really want to keep carrying these risky, expensive nuclear umbrellas forever?
Pershing II Missile, not Polaris, Polaris was a 60's era sub launched missile that was replaced in the US by Poseidon and UK with Trident
 

Anderman

Donor
I think G.O.V. has this right. But the one thing I remember that Reagan did with new weapons systems that got EVERYONE'S attention was the Polaris Missiles he wanted to put in Europe as a nuclear deterrent against a potential Russian invasion of Western Europe. The American public was unevenly divided maybe 2 to 1 in favor, but the Left (myself included) were very concerned with tripwire mentality and started the nuclear freeze movement. The European left went NUTS with fear, and anger. The Soviets realized there was no counter for such a move that was in their technological reach, and I think that was the time some Soviet apparachiks started contemplating whether a negotiated end to the Cold War would leave them able to retain power but have a more stable future, but in the short term, it put disarmament back on the table, which Gorbachev pushed and Reagan grabbed. The Trident Sub program and Star Wars program (SDI) were in the mix, yeah, at the level of Newsweek and Time Magazine, but I think it was Polaris that really made everybody sit up and think: Do we really want to keep carrying these risky, expensive nuclear umbrellas forever?

What do you mean with Polaris missile ? The SLBM UGM-27 ? Or did you mean the Pershing II and ground based cruise missiles ? Bothe are the result of the Nato double track decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Double-Track_Decision not only Reagans idea .
 

Deleted member 1487

In the 70s the Soviets made a string of bad choices:

1) They invested heavily in the oil industry (and imported expensive Western capital goods to exploit the Siberian oil faster) starving more useful industries of capital and producing "resource disease" that masked areas that needed reform until too late
2) They responded to the resource exhaustion of their Western territories by developing Siberian resources, thousands of km by rail from their industrial centers and their workforce. It would have been better to spend the money upgrading goods production technology so they could export manufactures and use the money to buy the raw materials on the world market (their ports, by contrast, were relatively close to their industrial centers).
3) They cut corners by trying to use new tools in old buildings, rather than building new factories to house their new tools. And of course, enterprise managers found that they didn't have the space to use the new tools, so they'd throw them in storage and keep on using the old tools.

Compared to these colossal blunders (and the massive mess of Soviet agricultural and food subsidies), the Soviet choices about military-industrial matters were not very significant.
What export industries could the USSR have successfully competed in that weren't weapons oriented? You're certainly right that they screwed up by not modernizing industry and infrastructure in their core population areas, especially in terms of agriculture, but the didn't really have civilian oriented competitive exports unless you are suggesting they pull a China in terms of cornering the low skilled manufacturing market. Take the example of the East Germans, one of the best performing Soviet bloc economies and one that didn't make the above mistakes: they kept trying to develop their computer chip market and develop high tech export industries, but repeatedly failed despite investing major sums.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_German_Democratic_Republic#Microelectronics_industry
The Soviet economies were just too behind the West to be competitive in high value manufactured exports. They could compete for low labor cost exports like China did, but that was about it. They already had Soviet style armaments exports maxed out. When the Soviet economies were exposed to western competition in the 1990s they were slaughtered and wiped out. Even better Soviet investment is little more than putting lipstick on a pig given the flaws in their economic model and the resulting problems in the former Soviet economies of Europe that are only now really finding their feet (minus Russia) is a testament to how flawed their model of economics was.

Carter was somewhat unlucky in becoming president when he did.
He could only become president when he did otherwise he was too outside the beltway to be considered by the public or party.

I think he is a greatly under-rated cold warrior.
In terms of how he treated labor, he was certainly good at standing up to the Ameri-Left.
 
Correction to my last post. It was the Pershing II missile system, not the sub-based Polaris system. Sorry, I did that one from memory (over 30 years ago. Agh!) Polaris was more popular in the US.
 
Top