No BAM!

Deep through the taiga,
sixty below,
Cut down the timber,
fight through the snow.

Chorus:

BAM! We plan to build it so very strong.
BAM! We plan to build it with a song.
BAM! Come on, and everybody sing along.
...

BAM! The rails shall all be laid.
BAM! The towns are here to stay.
BAM! It's the future of our day.
...

BAM! Far as the eye can see.
BAM! Built for you and me.
BAM! People can be free!
...

Building a railroad
"Baikal Magistral".
Building a future
Come on, sing it loud!

Chorus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xveYUMXBfVI

What if the "construction project of the century"--the Baikal-Amur Mainline--had never been built? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal%E2%80%93Amur_Mainline Well, for one thing we would lack this song by the "Red Elvis" Dean Reed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Reed but what would be the other consequences? If the money had been spent more wisely elsewhere (I know, a dubious assumption when you're talking about the Brezhnev-era Soviet Union) could it even have prolonged the life of the USSR?
 

trurle

Banned
The Soviet Union had a GDP of $2.7 trillion in 1989. $14 billion isn't very much money.

Soviets at that period had a resource-driven economy. Money expenditure is irrelevant and misleading.
Well, from the standpoint of resources..cancelling BAM may result in better concrete quality across USSR (hence lesser life losses in 1988 Armenian earthquake) and better roads maintenance. It will translate in less deep economic disintegration in European part of Soviet Union, and faster recovery. The effect on Siberia will be essentially zero, as BAM become de-facto operational only in 2003 (despite declared ready in 1991). In future, "no BAM" will mean slightly slower development of the Russian Far East.
 
Top