 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / October 2003Why Did The USSR Need To Keep Up With The West?
it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. Given that they had enough nukes to destroy the world at least twice over, why did they need to bother?. They could have just kept up the perception, kept enough to regain control and forget the rest, (assuming they don't take SDI for real) Thoughts? > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. > Given that they had enough nukes to destroy the world at least twice over, > why did they need to bother?. They could have just kept up the perception, > kept enough to regain control and forget the rest, (assuming they don't take > SDI for real) The Soviet was totally behind on a navy that could project their flag and strength around the world in peace time. They were working on their first real air craft carrier when things went down the drain. Yes they had enough missiles to knock out any enemy and their friends also, maybe 10 times over. Their big area of spending was tactical weapons. In 1985, the Soviet could have put more brand new tanks into the Fulda Gap than the US (and their allies) could put troops. They were way ahead of us. There was rhetoric in the Reagan administration that if they pushed us back to the ocean, we would nuke them, but that was never a viable option. The Soviet's GNP started declining rapidly and the percentage being spent on the military caused major shortages of consumer goods that eventually broke their back. > > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the Soviet could have put more brand new tanks into the Fulda Gap than > the US (and their allies) could put troops. They were way ahead of us. A useful counterpoint to this notion can be found in Andrew Cockburn's "The Threat" (1982). He attempts to demolish the myth of overwhelming Soviet military and is reasonable effective in doing so. Though, he does tend to go a bit too far, especially when he then analogizes Western military technology and doctrine to Soviet stuff. He's also a whingeing lefty, which gets on my nerves. But his analysis of the Soviets is right on. James Dunnigan's "How to Make War" series also contains a lot of "behind the numbers" data to show why the Soviets were not as overwhelming as the raw numbers might suggest. For a view of life in the Soviet military, I recommend "Inside the Soviet Army" and "The Liberators" by Victor Suvorov and "MiG Pilot" by John Barron. It's hard to imagine such forces fighting enthusiastically or well -- at least in a war in Western Europe started by the Soviets. As a modern wargamer (see my website at http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm ), I've extensively studied this subject. I don't think that by the mid-1980s the Soviets could have reasonably expected to win a fast conventional war in Europe. My readings indicate that the late 1970s were pretty much the last time that the Soviets really could have hoped to pull off a conventional victory in Europe. --Ty > > > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, > what [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > --Ty Critically, do you think they recognised this at that stage? NL "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:9GQkb.158820$bo1.67250@news- > > As a modern wargamer (see my website at > > http://www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm ), I've extensively studied this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Critically, do you think they recognised this at that stage? I don't know. The Soviets were certainly belligerent in the late 1970s -- Afghanistan for instance. But that may be more due to a calculation that Jimmy Carter lacked the strength to oppose them. As his feckless embargo of the 1980 Olympic Games showed... At the time, Western military literature was filled with doom and gloom about the gigantic Soviet conventional advantage. This was almost certainly grossly overstated IMHO. I think the Soviets had an edge, but not strong enough to guarantee the kind of swift victory that their economy and warfighting methodologies were geared for. Some contend that this was cynical manipulation by defense hawks and the defense industry. Others believe that it was a miscalculation based on misinterpretation of Soviet capibilities and a pretty good job of strategic deception by the Soviets. I tend to believe the latter, though I think that some of the former might have been going on. But what this might have done is encouraged the Soviets to be more aggressive, based on the notion that the West so feared Soviet conventional power that it would not face the USSR off. --Ty > I don't know. The Soviets were certainly belligerent in the late 1970s -- > Afghanistan for instance. But that may be more due to a calculation that > Jimmy Carter lacked the strength to oppose them. As his feckless embargo of > the 1980 Olympic Games showed... That may have been one of the greatest pieces of US diplomacy of all times. Think about the Soviet at that time. The whole world saw them as saber rattlers. Carter took away their chance to impress the rest of the world with their peace time culture. How much international TV coverage was there after the US withdrawal? Not very much. Not much at all in third world countries. > At the time, Western military literature was filled with doom and gloom > about the gigantic Soviet conventional advantage. This was almost certainly > grossly overstated IMHO. I think the Soviets had an edge, but not strong > enough to guarantee the kind of swift victory that their economy and > warfighting methodologies were geared for. The Soviets had a tactical advantage in Europe. They could have pushed the US out at any time but obviously they could not have won a war. As they were pushing the allies out, they would have lost all their military infrastructure behind the front line. > Some contend that this was cynical manipulation by defense hawks and the > defense industry. Others believe that it was a miscalculation based on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the West so feared Soviet conventional power that it would not face the USSR > off. Giving the Soviets credit for a strategic deception is a stretch to me. But your point about defense hawks is certainly valid. There were a lot of them around and still are with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheny being the leaders. The ex-general that Rumsfeld sent in to run Iraq initially has been pumping the defense machine for a long time. > > I don't know. The Soviets were certainly belligerent in the late 1970s -- > > Afghanistan for instance. But that may be more due to a calculation that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > coverage was there after the US withdrawal? Not very much. Not much at > all in third world countries. Sorry, but I saw it as an empty and feckless gesture. > > At the time, Western military literature was filled with doom and gloom > > about the gigantic Soviet conventional advantage. This was almost certainly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they were pushing the allies out, they would have lost all their > military infrastructure behind the front line. I don't agree -- assuming that we're talking about the 1970s. I think that the Soviet advantages in numbers of tanks, artillery pieces and other hardware was largely offset by the mediocre quality of the Red Army and the very dubious quality of Warsaw Pact forces. In fact, in terms of total manpower, it is possible that the Soviets were actually outnumbered (depending on how you count the forces). And when you consider the significant edge the Allies had in airpower (and its ability to interdict the vulnerable Soviet supply lines) and the defensive edge enjoyed by NATO forces, I don't think that the Soviets could have had a whole lot of confidence that they could push the Americans (and the rest of NATO) out of Germany. > > Some contend that this was cynical manipulation by defense hawks and the > > defense industry. Others believe that it was a miscalculation based on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Giving the Soviets credit for a strategic deception is a stretch to me. Why? The Soviets have a long history of strategic deception and put great faith in it. One is reminded of the ABM radars that were simply empty buildings, empty ICBM silos, rubber tanks and even a rubber submarine (see Suvorov's "Inside the Soviet Army" for details). > But your point about defense hawks is certainly valid. There were a lot > of them around and still are with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheny being > the leaders. The ex-general that Rumsfeld sent in to run Iraq initially > has been pumping the defense machine for a long time. I think that this was minimal -- then as now. The Western intelligence services were not omniscient. So they tended to overrate the Soviet threat simply because they would logically want to err on the side of caution. There was also a certain myopic tendency for Western analysts to see the Soviets through a Western prism. The MiG-25 Foxbat was a classic example. Western analysts concluded that it represented a technological breakthrough, on the basis that this is what would be required for the West to produce an aircraft of the MiG-25's supposed performance. When we got hold of one, we found that our estimates of average performance corresponded to *peak* performance (and in that case, the pilot was lucky to survive the flight). We found that it was built of aluminum, steel and some titanium, rather than some super alloy. The reason we assumed it was a super alloy is that the West would never have tolerated the very short range in a Foxbat-type interceptor. So we assumed that the Foxbat had range comparable to Western interceptors, which meant that the Soviets would have had to develop some super super light metal to get the same speed performance. We correlated power output with radar resolution (which is reasonable for Western radars) and determined that the Foxbat had a radar "capable of seeing God". In reality, it had a high powered (but comparatively low resolution) radar to defeat enemy jamming. And so it went. No conspiracy was necessary for us to honestly overrate the Soviets. All that was necessary was limited data. --Ty > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thoughts? I think that the USSR was attempting to dominate the world through its ideology, and a prime mover behind the apparent supremacy of an ideology are technical achievements. The space race certainly fits into that category. I do not think that USSR really feared the West as far its own existence was concerned. They were, IMO, more worried about the survival of their totalitarian system in world's perception as a viable alternative to free market democracy. The way a superpower, especially one that was untrammeled by popular opinion, thinks is very different from the rational calculations of a "normal" country. I do not know if any of such details have been declassified or will ever be, but I expect to see episodes where the USSR starved its own people in order to provide food aid to some Third World countries, not out of an overwhelming sense of generosity, but out of need to appear potent to its potential allies. So, in a sense, it was a matter of keeping up the appearances for them, and their ultimate demise can be seen as that of a state that had become a slave to its own destructive logic. > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thoughts? It was Reagan's Star Wars bluff. Having the 'nukes' would be useless with an effective enemy shield against them, so the USSR had to match the shield or be defenceless against the US arsenal. Simple really. They couldn't keep up the money, the military budget helped wreck their economy, they went broke economically and couldn't keep propping up the worthless rouble. Socialism (in reality State Capitalism which is what Socialism boils down to) is so incompetent it falls under its own weight. SDI simply finished off a tottering edifice. NL Bad people run ussr,usa and most of world. And i think evil oil/war merchant profiteered especially from usa deficite arms race. > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thoughts? > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thoughts? Well, I think that one problem is that they did take SDI for real. And while nukes are great for discouraging aggression against you, they really aren't so great for exporting World Communism. Nor are they particularly good for occupying "allied" socialist republics. I personally think that the USSR's only real claim to great power status was its military power. Economically, it was a large third world country with no chance of ever catching the US, much less the entire West. So your idea -- while it would have allowed the USSR to survive -- would have reduced its prestige to that of to third world nation ala China. While this outcome would be more desirable (for the USSR that is) than what happened, I'm pretty sure that the USSR's leaders in (say) 1980 had no idea that their course of action would destroy the USSR in a decade. And with a significantly weakened USSR, how long would it have taken for the various Soviet republics to break away? Admittedly, this happened anyway. But I don't think that the leaders of the USSR would have willingly begun a course in (say) 1980 with that end in mind. --Ty A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "Representative Trantis" <a@a.com> wrote: > it's oftern said that although their economy was spiraling downhill, what > killed off the USSR economically was keeping up with America militarily. What killed off the USSR was corruption, bureaucracy, and giving out too much free stuff to the 3rd world. Ever wonder how all those AK-47s, RPG- 7s, T-55 tanks, and other assorted junk got spread throughout the world by the MILLIONS? Most of it was given out for free (on loan, but it was never paid off). The USSR also supported too many welfare states like Cuba, Vietnam, the 'stans, etc. Maybe that says something about the USSR's possible good intentions for helping these poor countries fight off Amerikan imperialism, but it made very poor economic sense. This talk about the USSR being defeated by not being able to keep up with Amerika is propaganda by Amerika intended to prove that Amerika's "system" is somehow superior. The USSR was never in danger of being attacked by the U$ once it built its nuclear force, but policing all those welfare states took a might toll. Amerika's Jihad in Afghanistan put the nails in the coffin. The fact is, Amerika is well on its way to joining the other evil empire, and much for the same reasons. Corruption, bureaucracy, and a string of failed, ridiculously expensive "regime changes". Ironically, Amerika is going to be destroyed by that very Jihad it began in Afghanistan. Not so dumb, those Muslims, eh? Don't say I didn't warn you. :^P  Signature--=( Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí )=----- ----- --- - - Rebel Alliance Galactic Usenet News Service --- --- ---=================----------- - - Bin Laden, before turning to the Dark Side: http://www.sid-ss.net/911/obl-at14.jpg > What killed off the USSR was corruption, bureaucracy, and giving out too > much free stuff to the 3rd world. Ever wonder how all those AK-47s, RPG- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > those welfare states took a might toll. Amerika's Jihad in Afghanistan > put the nails in the coffin. I'm confused. On the one had you're saying that the Russian system was bad because it didn't make economic sense gaving away masses of weapons, but then you immedietely say that the American system (who presumably didn't give away, or at least didn't give away as much) wasn't superior? Surely if the American system didn't lead to economic colapse, it must (at least in purely the economic sense) have been better. You have a point for once. Soon we in the USA may be just like the EU. It is the goal of the lesftist democrats in our country. Several of these are wanting to be President. They want us to be a State of the UN, not an independant free nation. EU is now afraid to upset any Muslim group, they take crap from any terrorist group, they are afraid to stand on principle, they are dependant on the foreigners for low paid workers, & they always for appeasement. If the leftist democrats in the USA have their way then we will be just like the EU, then the Wahabbi Muslim terrorist will be able to say out loud "CONVERT or DIE". They will have the 11th century back and the Wahabbi Taliban will control the world. This is what will be if the USA accepts the EU thinking. We are getting close to that. Z > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "Representative Trantis" > <a@a.com> wrote: . >> Don't say I didn't warn you. :^P > You have a point for once. Soon we in the USA may be just like the EU. It > is the goal of the lesftist democrats in our country. Several of these are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "CONVERT or DIE". They will have the 11th century back and the Wahabbi > Taliban will control the world. Unless of course, we do what richard Dawkins has suggested and finally abandon religion! (and I fully agree with him) > Unless of course, we do what richard Dawkins has suggested and finally > abandon religion! (and I fully agree with him) Yes it worked so well in the assorted Communist nations in the 20th century, didn't it? Or do you consider Marxism a religion as well? --Ty Bullcrap. With all the oil, weapon and drug monies, USSR could afford supporting a dozen or so of satellites. What they could not afford however is building their own shuttle. "Buran" was the killer of the Soviet Union, not AK-47. Nice picture by the way. I've never seen so many ugly girls in one photo. Which one is your sister? > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "Representative Trantis" > <a@a.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Bin Laden, before turning to the Dark Side: > http://www.sid-ss.net/911/obl-at14.jpg What caused the USSR to destruct? 10. Rock 'n roll is very subversive 9. Fashions, chi-chi, blue jeans, overly expensive tennis shoes 8. Dope, drugs, tv commercials for claritin ad nauseam 7. international television showing the implicit consumerism & affluence in general hospital and the edge of night 6. the telephone, fax, xerox, and the coup d' grace, the internet 5. gorby's bad omen port wine stain birth mark spooked 'em 4. afghanistan, as in that ole anti-vietnam frustrated awful feeling 3. ed sullivan's outrageous cancellation of the siberian circus bears for an extended topo gigo 2. shortages of borscht, kippers, smelly stuffed derma, barley soup and lox 'n bagels 1. lack of warm water ports, of course > A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, "Representative Trantis" > <a@a.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Don't say I didn't warn you. :^P Wishful thinking huh? I suggest do better on your studies of the U.S. Look past your "government-only" perspective. Jihad is a f.cking joke. Tear down America, tear down the world. R.A.G. obviously speaks from ignorance. The "free" weapons were given to nations which were then looted by the soviet, the looting being more restricted by soviet incompetence than any effort to protect the natives. A substantial part of third world debt is directly attributable to soviet weapons bought by these third world nations. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.