Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal

If you want a little fact to dispute the 95% then note that since 1992
Russian military spending has only declined about 45% (now at about 85
billion). If it were at 95% GNP than it would STILL be at about 55% GNP.
We
know that's not true. Of course I guess it's possible for a VERY short
period Russian spending went sky high but I doubt even that. An economic
move of that magnatiude could not have been hidden.

Paul

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