Putin vows 'arms race' response

**~~imishin~~** · 24 Apr 08,, 05:54

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Let's see the last time was right in the middle of the OPEC embargo, the ending of Vietnam War, and the US just went off the Gold Standard. So YES.

Heh, I don't think so, if Im not mistaken the dollar fell in respect to the British pound to the lowest marking in 57 years. You also did not have a 9 trillion dollar debt and your economy was not reliant primarily on borrowing money from ideologically opposing nations such as China. Also most of your consumer industry wasn't based in another country.

It also meant that they know what they had at the time was not working.

Not exactly, all it meant was that Gorbachev was quicker than the others, once he got the power he could do whatever the hell he wanted, in the 80s the party didn't have the gull to plan a coup. Gorbachev is an embarrassment
and forever shall remain as such. My point stands, in 1986, not the Politburo, not Gorbachev, nor anyone else even suspected that by 1991 the Soviet Union would fall apart.

**Roosveltrepub** · 24 Apr 08,, 13:08

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

At the moment Russia still has second strike capability... but from what I have read I don't think either side has the ability to destroy one another several times over in a second strike... especially if the first side got in a surprise first strike (although the world for the survivors would be completely changed).

Hence my "perhaps more so than they can destroy us" comment. Nothing is certain, however Russia does have several advantages and weaknesses compared to the US in a nuclear war.

In Nuclear war there are no winners just millions of dead people.
The whole world would loose
Russia is a great power and just reinstating itself onto the world stage. I don't know where people get the idea they are broke they are now a petro power. Our refusal to cut the use of oil has empowered Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

The federal budget surplus in 2006 is expected to be 405 billion rubles

We are the ones borrowing huge sums from the world not them. This isn't the year 2000 anymore.

**Roosveltrepub** · 24 Apr 08,, 13:32

Originally Posted by imishin

Heh, I don't think so, if Im not mistaken the dollar fell in respect to the British pound to the lowest marking in 57 years. You also did not have a 9 trillion dollar debt and your economy was not reliant primarily on borrowing money from ideologically opposing nations such as China. Also most of your consumer industry wasn't based in another country.

Too many of my fellow countrymen would rather live in a group think bubble where they tell each other all is well than accept the sacrifices needed to correct the problems you point out.

**Officer of Engineers** · 24 Apr 08,, 14:21

So we should go back to the stone age and go by horse and cart?

**Roosveltrepub** · 24 Apr 08,, 14:36

Originally Posted by imishin

Its not like the debt is staying the same, it is growing, and eventually it will be greater then your nations GDP (14 trillion if Im not mistaken). The more money you owe the less you will be able to pay it back and eventually you will not be able to pay it back at all. In addition, that money being in dollars, dollar gets weaker it becomes less and less profitable lending you money.

You know all the projections for controlling the deficit in the future we have been given assume we do not address the Alt minimum tax and that all bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. Doing either of those paints a different picture. you also forget we have looming entitlement obligations we are less able to meet each year we increase federal debt and deficits. tic tic tic tic. the clock is ticking toward that day and we have greatly decreased our ability to deal with it the last 7 years.