If Ronald Reagan had not gone on a Military spending Binge, would the USSR have still collapsed?.
If Ronald Reagan had not gone on a Military spending Binge, would the USSR have still collapsed?.
Anyone have numbers handy that show the size of this spending binge for the decade?
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
If Ronald Reagan had not gone on a Military spending Binge, would the USSR have still collapsed?.
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![]()
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?
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)
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.
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 TridentI 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?
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.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.
He could only become president when he did otherwise he was too outside the beltway to be considered by the public or party.Carter was somewhat unlucky in becoming president when he did.
In terms of how he treated labor, he was certainly good at standing up to the Ameri-Left.I think he is a greatly under-rated cold warrior.