Reese wrote:
> Certainly Afghanistan cost them. So did the annual payments to prop up
> Castros Island Paradise of Pain & Torture. So did other things. I seem to
> recall much being said about Star Wars technology as the straw that broke
> the camels back - to abuse the clich�. His detractors did call him Ronnie
> RayGun.
if anything, it's not the space program. russian space program costs
considerably less than the US one. their rockets are simpler and a lot
cheaper. I have data somewhere if you need to know. from memory, I
recall that they can put 3-4 satellites up there for the same cost that
the NASA takes to put up 2.
yeah, they occasionally lose one, and there have most likely been many
more deaths in the russian space program compared to the US one, but
they don't have the public outcry problem.
> >The arms race was irrelevant, the economic system in the USSR had
> >failled. It is arguable that it never recovered from the second world war.
>
> Then Reagans policies, which delivered a coup de gras and made soviet
> communism obsolete (rather than perpetuate the paper tiger as had been done
> since the end of WWII), is still noteworthy.
from a european perspective (yeah I know, we are all socialists :) ) the
USA had little to no influence. the USSR problems were home-grown. the
russians I've met in my life agree on that, but of course one could
claim that they've been living in an isolated society and were subject
to massive propaganda. and of course, they're all socialists. :)
> Try saying something good about Reagan, I wanna see if you can.
he was an acceptable actor. :)
