3 ms·
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear: I’m not advocating for this viewpoint (nor against it, actually); I’m just explaining how this “line of thinking” usually goes, sin
by maratc 2y ago
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear: I’m not advocating for this viewpoint (nor against it, actually); I’m just explaining how this “line of thinking” usually goes, since that was a question from GP.
- eesmith 2y agoTo my understanding, the costs involved in the Soviet response to SDI were small, and had very little effect on national spending, so I don't see how that's important enough to mention. Surely the falling price of oil was more significant, yes? I'll bet the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was also more expensive. Since gadders' comment is flagged, I don't know the fuller context.
- maratc 2y agohttps://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8cnm73/did_reagans_star_wars_project_really_contribute/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8cnm73/did_r...
- eesmith 2y agoSome commentary about why you gave that link would be nice. I think you meant as a way to say "looks like you are right"? That is, as far as I can tell, it agrees with me ("responses to SDI were not a major factor in either the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor in the end of the Cold War"), including by citing the same source I gave, the paper by Pavel Podvig.