11 ms·

> The debate went back and forth. But in the end, the Congressmen basically admitted that the only reason they wanted the US to build such a machine would be be

> The debate went back and forth. But in the end, the Congressmen basically admitted that the only reason they wanted the US to build such a machine would be because the Soviets had one too. I want to see when that admission was made, and how someone got them to admit it. It was the most surprising part of the article for me. Wouldn't it be great to see more defense spending introspection and honesty.

at-fates-hands 4y ago
Here's some more information about the congressional hearings: “The United States Cannot Afford to Lag Behind Russia”: Making the Case for an American Nuclear Icebreaker, 1957-1961 https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol31/tnm_31_31-60.pdf https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol31/tnm_31_31-6... Its not surprising Eisenhower vetoed it. He vetoed 39 bills in 1958 alone.
- simonebrunozzi 4y ago
  You probably know more about Eisenhower than I do - perhaps you grew up in the US and know its history well. Can you tell me why this isn't surprising? What about Eisenhower and his vetoing bills in great numbers?
  - CapitalistCartr 4y ago
    Eisenhower came from a military background, rather than political, and was pretty outspoken regarding his opinions, compared to most politicians. He was comfortable vetoing any bill he thought was wrong. In spite of his reputation as a hard-line anti-communist, his presidential farewell address famously warned against "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex".
  - at-fates-hands 4y ago
    Eisenhower was notoriously prudent when it came to spending. The majority of his tenure from 53'-61' congress was controlled by the Democrats. His only power to constrain spending was the veto. Of the 181 bills he vetoed, only two were overridden by congress. Many people believe that because he vetoed so many bills, it allowed his administration to run a surplus in three of his eight years in office.
    - nomel 4y ago
      Was pork in bills as much of a problem back then?
      - ksherlock 4y ago
        Prior to 1974 (Impoundment Control Act), the President had some discretion in spending money. https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-con...
pvg 4y ago
Parity with and superiority to the Soviet Union was an overt part of US policy-making for decades. What's changed is that it's somewhat less overt now for various reasons one of them being the there's less of an explicit ideological conflict between the US/allies and its adversaries.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  Yeah, people underestimate how important the US/Soviet rivalry was towards the overall ambition of American policies. Having poor quality infrastructure and a poor disgruntled populis was unacceptable as it would be taciturn to admitting defeat. As soon as we lost an enemy, we lost a large amount of institutional motivation to be exceptional
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Looks like that's about to change (back) for better or worse. The unipolar world was never really tenable. I can't think of any major problems that the US government solved since the USSR collapsed. Maybe a little competition at the international level is needed.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      With who? China is a third world country and Russia is making itself into one.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        In terms of quality of life, USSR was also a third world country. But a third world country with aircraft carriers and ICBMs is a very different story for those who have to interact with it.
        thrown_22 4y ago
        The USSR was by definition a second world country. Third world countries in the in the 1960 had life expectancy on the order of 35 years. The USSR twice that at 67. Colonialism was not a picnic for the people colonialised.
ethagknight 4y ago
Its reasonable to build something that your competitor has, for which you have no use for today, but may need ASAP tomorrow for unforeseen reasons. In the case of a nuclear icebreaker, it may be rescuing stranded covert operatives or getting a certain ship with certain capabilities to a certain location.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Especially with a potential war partner - if they have a capability you do not, even if you can't figure out a reason for that capability; the enemy may have and you'll need to be able to counter it.
  - embedded_hiker 4y ago
    That is apparently the reason the USSR made the Buran space shuttle. They couldn't figure out what the US needed that capability for. Turns out, we didn't either, at least for military applications.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Arguably the Buran was more advanced than the shuttle (it completed one solo flight, orbiting twice and auto-landing), but they never got a chance to do anything else with it.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Put a bunch of nukes in the cargo bay and you have a good idea what the shuttle could be used for.
      - google234123 4y ago
        Or you could just put nukes in missiles that can go in the ground, on planes, in artillery, on ships, or on submarines?
        4y ago
duxup 4y ago
I really don’t think that would be a revelation that would be hard to get out of someone… probably has zeroes consequences.
lostlogin 4y ago
> Wouldn't it be great to see more defense spending introspection and honesty. This would be darkly amusing at the moment. Funding hardware to beat Russia isn’t as hard as it used to be.

at-fates-hands 4y ago

Here's some more information about the congressional hearings: “The United States Cannot Afford to Lag Behind Russia”: Making the Case for an American Nuclear Icebreaker, 1957-1961 https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol31/tnm_31_31-60.pdf https://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/vol31/tnm_31_31-6... Its not surprising Eisenhower vetoed it. He vetoed 39 bills in 1958 alone.

simonebrunozzi 4y ago
You probably know more about Eisenhower than I do - perhaps you grew up in the US and know its history well. Can you tell me why this isn't surprising? What about Eisenhower and his vetoing bills in great numbers?
- CapitalistCartr 4y ago
  Eisenhower came from a military background, rather than political, and was pretty outspoken regarding his opinions, compared to most politicians. He was comfortable vetoing any bill he thought was wrong. In spite of his reputation as a hard-line anti-communist, his presidential farewell address famously warned against "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex".
- at-fates-hands 4y ago
  Eisenhower was notoriously prudent when it came to spending. The majority of his tenure from 53'-61' congress was controlled by the Democrats. His only power to constrain spending was the veto. Of the 181 bills he vetoed, only two were overridden by congress. Many people believe that because he vetoed so many bills, it allowed his administration to run a surplus in three of his eight years in office.
  - nomel 4y ago
    Was pork in bills as much of a problem back then?
    - ksherlock 4y ago
      Prior to 1974 (Impoundment Control Act), the President had some discretion in spending money. https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-control-act-1974-what-it-why-does-it-matter https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/impoundment-con...

pvg 4y ago

Parity with and superiority to the Soviet Union was an overt part of US policy-making for decades. What's changed is that it's somewhat less overt now for various reasons one of them being the there's less of an explicit ideological conflict between the US/allies and its adversaries.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
Yeah, people underestimate how important the US/Soviet rivalry was towards the overall ambition of American policies. Having poor quality infrastructure and a poor disgruntled populis was unacceptable as it would be taciturn to admitting defeat. As soon as we lost an enemy, we lost a large amount of institutional motivation to be exceptional
- cpursley 4y ago
  Looks like that's about to change (back) for better or worse. The unipolar world was never really tenable. I can't think of any major problems that the US government solved since the USSR collapsed. Maybe a little competition at the international level is needed.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    With who? China is a third world country and Russia is making itself into one.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      In terms of quality of life, USSR was also a third world country. But a third world country with aircraft carriers and ICBMs is a very different story for those who have to interact with it.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        The USSR was by definition a second world country. Third world countries in the in the 1960 had life expectancy on the order of 35 years. The USSR twice that at 67. Colonialism was not a picnic for the people colonialised.

ethagknight 4y ago

Its reasonable to build something that your competitor has, for which you have no use for today, but may need ASAP tomorrow for unforeseen reasons. In the case of a nuclear icebreaker, it may be rescuing stranded covert operatives or getting a certain ship with certain capabilities to a certain location.

bombcar 4y ago
Especially with a potential war partner - if they have a capability you do not, even if you can't figure out a reason for that capability; the enemy may have and you'll need to be able to counter it.
- embedded_hiker 4y ago
  That is apparently the reason the USSR made the Buran space shuttle. They couldn't figure out what the US needed that capability for. Turns out, we didn't either, at least for military applications.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Arguably the Buran was more advanced than the shuttle (it completed one solo flight, orbiting twice and auto-landing), but they never got a chance to do anything else with it.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    Put a bunch of nukes in the cargo bay and you have a good idea what the shuttle could be used for.
    - google234123 4y ago
      Or you could just put nukes in missiles that can go in the ground, on planes, in artillery, on ships, or on submarines?
      - 4y ago

duxup 4y ago

I really don’t think that would be a revelation that would be hard to get out of someone… probably has zeroes consequences.

lostlogin 4y ago

> Wouldn't it be great to see more defense spending introspection and honesty. This would be darkly amusing at the moment. Funding hardware to beat Russia isn’t as hard as it used to be.