7 ms·

>...causing them to overspend on defense and eventually go bust. I heard this in school, but it felt like post-Cold war propaganda. Is this considered a true r

>...causing them to overspend on defense and eventually go bust. I heard this in school, but it felt like post-Cold war propaganda. Is this considered a true rendition of events? By all accounts, both sides just kept ramping up spending, it was just that Russia's line of credit ended sooner.

PaulHoule 4y ago
... the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount on S-300 antiaircraft missiles, probably enough to shoot down all the planes on Earth because they were afraid of getting bombed. This is why they won't run out in the Ukraine war and even use them against ground targets.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
p_l 4y ago
Similarly, I've heard opinions attributed to Gorbachev that the thing that really broke the system was costs of Chornobyl cleanup. Another thing usually missed in the "West" is that Soviet Union pretty much never stopped being in crash industrialization mode due to how poor its starting position was.
Apocryphon 4y ago
I don't think Star Wars by itself caused the Soviets to defense spend themselves into oblivion, but it was probably a high-profile example of Reagan saber-rattling that pushed them towards that direction. It's one of those history is fantastical examples where an odd factoid is part of a greater trend. Like how American entry into World War I is partly because of the Zimmerman Telegram- the publicizing of German diplomatic efforts to entice Mexico into an invasion of the United States. Wonder if Legoland Korea will end up as one of those factoids.
- simne 4y ago
  As Ukrainian, must say, Soviets, like ANY totalitarian system, once totally broke closed loop tie with reality, and build defense against fictional creatures. This is what differs democracy, that it have powerful and reliable closed loop tie with reality, by definition.
- simne 4y ago
  > American entry into World War I is partly because of the Zimmerman Telegram Do you really think, existed any tiny chance, US would not enter World War? From geography, it is obvious, US is on the middle between EU and South America. In such position, you should become active subject, or you will be used by anybody as object, for just transit or as base for one side (borderland). As example, Ukraine hundreds years was borderland, and this costs ocean of Ukrainian blood.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, there was no guarantee that the fairly isolationist U.S. had any interest in getting entangled into Europe’s wars.
    - simne 4y ago
      You know, Ukraine conducted policy of self isolation, before war. Now running to EU and NATO, because isolation costs too much, concessions don't give security. And for US, entanglement in world policy is matter of existence, because of how Union born. If federal govt will not protect allies, federation will fall, because states will get out and do all themselves. Imagine, Scottish, or Irish, or Italian people, ignoring what happen in their motherland - this is impossible. and if feds will entangle in ANY european activity, they will in short time have to deal with all most powerful currents. South America different, because nearly all countries have mostly native people, or totally cosmopolitan, so for them european currents are just performance, nothing more.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        The difference is that the U.S. is separated from Europe by an ocean, has no countries with revanchist claims upon it, has a New World vs. Old World distinction, etc…
        simne 4y ago
        Partially agree. But if you look into principles of federation, things are much more complicated.
RC_ITR 4y ago
The US just outgrew the USSR and there's no single event that caused that. [0 - keep in mind that's a log scale] It became untenable for a relatively small economy like the USSR to compete with the US, and Regan 'turning up the heat' may have had some impact, but it was likely negligable. The Cold War was lost because Soviet-style economic management failed vs. US Style economic management. What may have been a somewhat equal fight in 1950 was a joke by 1988. [0] https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexible_wysiwyg/public/image/FromMay2014/harrisonfig1.png?itok=_lHGV6wV https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexible_wysiwyg...
yxhuvud 4y ago
No. Russia overspent because it was riding on an oil boom stemming from the oil crisis, instead of having to do reforms in the 70s. Then they got poor when oil prices came down and failed to reform fast enough to counter the new budgetary realities.
- JamisonM 4y ago
  Yes people overthink it but it was essentially a resource economy boom-bust cycle situation, the belief that the good times will last forever is a hell of a drug.
unethical_ban 4y ago
I never heard that, but in Interstellar a teacher says the moon landing was faked to provoke the Soviet Union into financial ruin.
- simne 4y ago
  This is close to reality. US constantly use symmetrical approach for defense, because democracy have so huge economy advantage over totalitarian countries, so will win any direct competition. Russia on other side, constantly looking for superweapon, which will give military advantage without prohibitively large spending's. This even got name - asymmetrical approach. Examples of asymmetrical approach, are German U-boats, later soviet submarines with ICBMs, ICBMs, railway based ICBMs and auto based, "Poseidon" nuclear powered torpedo. BTW, many examples of asymmetrical approach, are considered non-ethical in Western world.
vkou 4y ago
It's mostly cold war propaganda, because the USSR was pouring an incredible amount of it's economic output into defense spending since WW2. The star wars gap would have just meant that it couldn't maintain parity with the US on yet another battlefront, but nothing external was going to stop it from continuing on it's course. It would have had to reign in it's imperial ambitions some, but that is completely survivable for an industrialized nation. What killed the USSR was Gorbachev prioritizing butter over guns, and having a shred of humanity in him, by choosing to not respond to political problems with violence. He was the real hero of the crisis, not for the things he did, but for the things he didn't do.

PaulHoule 4y ago

... the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount on S-300 antiaircraft missiles, probably enough to shoot down all the planes on Earth because they were afraid of getting bombed. This is why they won't run out in the Ukraine war and even use them against ground targets.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

p_l 4y ago

Similarly, I've heard opinions attributed to Gorbachev that the thing that really broke the system was costs of Chornobyl cleanup. Another thing usually missed in the "West" is that Soviet Union pretty much never stopped being in crash industrialization mode due to how poor its starting position was.

Apocryphon 4y ago

I don't think Star Wars by itself caused the Soviets to defense spend themselves into oblivion, but it was probably a high-profile example of Reagan saber-rattling that pushed them towards that direction. It's one of those history is fantastical examples where an odd factoid is part of a greater trend. Like how American entry into World War I is partly because of the Zimmerman Telegram- the publicizing of German diplomatic efforts to entice Mexico into an invasion of the United States. Wonder if Legoland Korea will end up as one of those factoids.

simne 4y ago
As Ukrainian, must say, Soviets, like ANY totalitarian system, once totally broke closed loop tie with reality, and build defense against fictional creatures. This is what differs democracy, that it have powerful and reliable closed loop tie with reality, by definition.
simne 4y ago
> American entry into World War I is partly because of the Zimmerman Telegram Do you really think, existed any tiny chance, US would not enter World War? From geography, it is obvious, US is on the middle between EU and South America. In such position, you should become active subject, or you will be used by anybody as object, for just transit or as base for one side (borderland). As example, Ukraine hundreds years was borderland, and this costs ocean of Ukrainian blood.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, there was no guarantee that the fairly isolationist U.S. had any interest in getting entangled into Europe’s wars.
  - simne 4y ago
    You know, Ukraine conducted policy of self isolation, before war. Now running to EU and NATO, because isolation costs too much, concessions don't give security. And for US, entanglement in world policy is matter of existence, because of how Union born. If federal govt will not protect allies, federation will fall, because states will get out and do all themselves. Imagine, Scottish, or Irish, or Italian people, ignoring what happen in their motherland - this is impossible. and if feds will entangle in ANY european activity, they will in short time have to deal with all most powerful currents. South America different, because nearly all countries have mostly native people, or totally cosmopolitan, so for them european currents are just performance, nothing more.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The difference is that the U.S. is separated from Europe by an ocean, has no countries with revanchist claims upon it, has a New World vs. Old World distinction, etc…
      - simne 4y ago
        Partially agree. But if you look into principles of federation, things are much more complicated.

RC_ITR 4y ago

The US just outgrew the USSR and there's no single event that caused that. [0 - keep in mind that's a log scale] It became untenable for a relatively small economy like the USSR to compete with the US, and Regan 'turning up the heat' may have had some impact, but it was likely negligable. The Cold War was lost because Soviet-style economic management failed vs. US Style economic management. What may have been a somewhat equal fight in 1950 was a joke by 1988. [0] https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexible_wysiwyg/public/image/FromMay2014/harrisonfig1.png?itok=_lHGV6wV https://cepr.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexible_wysiwyg...

yxhuvud 4y ago

No. Russia overspent because it was riding on an oil boom stemming from the oil crisis, instead of having to do reforms in the 70s. Then they got poor when oil prices came down and failed to reform fast enough to counter the new budgetary realities.

JamisonM 4y ago
Yes people overthink it but it was essentially a resource economy boom-bust cycle situation, the belief that the good times will last forever is a hell of a drug.

unethical_ban 4y ago

I never heard that, but in Interstellar a teacher says the moon landing was faked to provoke the Soviet Union into financial ruin.

simne 4y ago
This is close to reality. US constantly use symmetrical approach for defense, because democracy have so huge economy advantage over totalitarian countries, so will win any direct competition. Russia on other side, constantly looking for superweapon, which will give military advantage without prohibitively large spending's. This even got name - asymmetrical approach. Examples of asymmetrical approach, are German U-boats, later soviet submarines with ICBMs, ICBMs, railway based ICBMs and auto based, "Poseidon" nuclear powered torpedo. BTW, many examples of asymmetrical approach, are considered non-ethical in Western world.

vkou 4y ago

It's mostly cold war propaganda, because the USSR was pouring an incredible amount of it's economic output into defense spending since WW2. The star wars gap would have just meant that it couldn't maintain parity with the US on yet another battlefront, but nothing external was going to stop it from continuing on it's course. It would have had to reign in it's imperial ambitions some, but that is completely survivable for an industrialized nation. What killed the USSR was Gorbachev prioritizing butter over guns, and having a shred of humanity in him, by choosing to not respond to political problems with violence. He was the real hero of the crisis, not for the things he did, but for the things he didn't do.