What if the relative decline of coventional military power continued post-Vietnam/economic problems throughout the 1980s, rather than being ramped up by Reagan in a calculated attempt to overawe and bankrupt the USSR?
US never ramps up arms race
- Thread starter Fellatio Nelson
- Start date
It amuses me how people always think of how money "could have been spent better" as though the more likely senerio, ie blown by politians buying votes, is somehow something that never happens.
Oh, and to correct you,
Possiblities, without pressure from US, SU has more options such as simplely "temporay" lessening of military spending, thus avoiding ideological implications of standing down.
Or more serious reform but at a still more controlled pace, still aiming for continued political control, possiblely with a greater chance of success.
Or if the military/political weakness of NATO is tempting enough, just perhaps the Politburo convinces itself that the correlation of forces is to favorable to pass up and launches the Big One.
Soviet Union collapses as it did historically. Soviet spending level was already unsustainable and did not rise due to Reagan. One should also remember that Reagan buildup was also a time when obsolete weapons were pressed into service (USS New Jersey), kept in service for longer time (gazillion NG/ANG units) or weapons which were unsuitable were built for political reasons, to display "determination" (B-1).
Without Reagan buildup the US post-Cold War military performance would be at same, or higher, level. The difference is economical one, but not that large one. Whether or not same money would have been spent more or less wisely is naturally the question mark.
In FY 1979 (Carter) US defense spending was 5,41% of GDP
In FY 1981 (Carter) US defense spending was 6,19% of GDP
In FY 1984 (Reagan) it was 6,84%
In FY 1989 (Reagan) it was 6,26%
In FY 1994 (Clinton) it was 4,76%
So, even if Reagan, for some reason, decided to Clintonize defense spending the overall effect would be that US defense spending would be about 75% of the historical effect, or, as we know, much more than enough to overawe the Soviets.
Eh? if they had satellite bloody TV then things couldnt have been all that bad.
Even before TV there was other means of communication and TV like everything else can be controlled if the government has the will look at North Korea.
The Soviets where never awed by Reagan's bulid up they had plied up plenty of hardware during the 70’s and still had a massive military budget, if anything Reagan's new arms race would more likely have provoked a siege mentally in thee Soviet leadership pre-Gorby. If Gorby handnt gained power in 1985 the Soviets may have just squeezed their economy harder to produce more weapons after all if the USA had started an arms spending spree the Soviet/Russian population would be willing to bear the burden, their country had suffered a lot during WW1 & 2 so they good reason to fear US aggression.
yes exactly the would stay afloat longer and if they budget got slashed in the SU then it would go to the people and even if the went to 80 percent the budget that would make a big diffrence and if they struck the west like they could have in the late seventys they would win and all the riches of the west would spread to the people
No Reagan defense policy means the Soviets aren't bled nearly as much in Afghanistan, Angola, and Nicaragua.
I fail to see how they weren't spending MORE than they were before given the more intensive combat in the periphery of the Soviet sphere.
Huh, Afghanistan want a huge drain on the Soviet buget it was a major
irritation but not crippling in terms cost in blood or equipment Angola, and Nicaragua are also negligible.
Their buget may have been slightly bigger, but the Soviets had pilied up a lot of arms during the 70's and their war factories produced equipment according to central planning, so their cost was already factored in Soviet exports of free/dirt cheap arms to their clients just slowed down a little to cover the equipment losses in Afghanistan.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I thought that Kennedy had exagerated the 'missile gap'. There was a missile gap, but in our favour.