Prev: Re: For Jon @ GZG: Point conversion from FT to DS2 Next: Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal

Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal

From: Paul Calvi <tanker@r...>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 00:26:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal

That's mostly a lot of hooey if you ask me. Russia NEVER spent that much
(as a % of GNP) on defense. Just think about it, it's impossible. They
didn't spend that much during WW2. Also, as I said, the U.S. has spent
about 5% GNP since Korea. We've never dipped to 2%. Perceptions of
Carter
were certainly bad but in reality his military spending was about the
same
as Reagan's, as a % of GNP, although more in actual dollars. The U.S.
Navy
had more ships at the end of Carter's last term than at the end of
Reagan's. One big thing that did happen under Reagan (that had nothing
to
do with him) was that the military underwent a reform. Under Carter, the
military was still suffering the after effects of Vietnam whereas it got
its sh** together again under Reagan (as seen in Desert Storm).

Paul

At 11:24 PM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:

>I have a point, please bear with me...
>
>It seams just before the end of the "cold war", there was this russian
>general who defected to the U.S.  He told about several things, one of
>which was the russian spending.  He said at the END, they were spending
>98%GNP on all military projects only.	And a reporter discusing it, at
>the time, said: the U.S was spending only 2%GNP....It seems that the
>U.S, and Russia was spending about the same amount in actual money.
>
>It seems that all through the cold war, the russians kept increasing
>their military spending, because they were preparing to attack the U.S.

>Every time they thought they were ready, something would happen here to
>scare the willys out of them, and they would scrap all of their plans,
>and start over.  The main reason for the colapse of russia, was their
>military spending.  The russian general also said that if President
>Carter had stayed in office another term, or someone like him, the
>Russians WOULD have attacked.
>
>How close we came....
>
>Anyway...What this shows is that if a player in an empire game desides
>to over tax is population, his population will eventully revolt.
>
>Donald Hosford
>
>

-----
Paul J. Calvi Jr.
tanker@rahul.net

"Objective, Offense, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command,
Security, Surprise, Simplicity"

15SEP16

Prev: Re: For Jon @ GZG: Point conversion from FT to DS2 Next: Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal