 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
You could never compete with the EU.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Dan:
"A good article on the budget. US figures say 15-17%, but the Soviets themselves came out with wildly higher numbers. 1/3. 1/2."
Looks implausible. The US overestimated USSR GDP somewhat, but when we look at around 1990, I thinkUS GDP was about 5 trillion $ with 300 billion for defense. USSR should have been 1.5-2 trillion. A third to half of that would make for 500 billion - 1 trillion $. That sounds totally unrealistic, given the actual strength of the soviet military compared to the west.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002 time: 23:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler
1. Andropov was far from a redical reformer but he saw the needs for some reforms. Gorbachev was his protegee IIRC.
"Because they were already spending 40% of their GNP on the military."
More like 10-15 %. Where do you get such a big number? |
The Central Intelligence Agency estimates the Soviet defense burden at 15 to 17 percent of gross national product, while a European specialist puts it at 22 to 30 percent.(7)
(7) Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, "The Soviet Economy in 1988: Gorbachev Changes Course," Report to the Joint Economic Committee, April 14, 1989, p. 18; Aslund, Gorbachev's Struggle, p. 15; see also Philip Hanson, "A Defense Spending Mystery," Report on the USSR, April 21, 1989, pp. 18-20; Michael Dobbs, "Gorbachev Bares Budget for Military," Washington Post, May 31, 1989.
Keep in mind that those are 1988 estimates when their military spending was decreasing. Also remember that money goes to support the military that isnt direct military spending. 40% was the number in my memory from when I cared about such stuff (early 1980's). It may be a little high.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I wasn't aware of serious estimates that go beyond 20 %. It's entirely possible, I just think it's more of an outlyer.
"Also remember that money goes to support the military that isnt direct military spending."
The macroeconomic defense burden should account for that all.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"If this is any indication of what was happening in other areas..."
I'm really going on rough memories here, but I think eg there were 50.000 soviet tanks vs 20-25.000 of NATO. A lot of the soviet ones were mothballed old designs. And the USSR concentrated on tanks. Having twice the western defense spending should have given a much larger mass of modern tanks, should it not?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
BTW 3 of the "pro US" east European countries (FYROM, Albania and Bulgaria) are totally dependent on one little sh*t's economy to live. France and Germany don't even need to bother.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Dan:
"Not if it's sh!tty steel and bad parts and those 50,000 had to be replaced at a good clip."
Not sure what the point is. Low quality would allow even larger quantities of the older tanks. Also, the defense and GNP estimates are PPP based, so low quality would reduce the spending level (or get more tanks out of an equal spending level).
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|