RE: Ronald Reagan

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Ronald Reagan

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Ronald Reagan

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 5:12:10 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Is that the one that ends with a city being sacrificed to stop the war escalating to a full global exchange?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 121

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 9:03:23 AM

Arpig

Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline

quote:

This was the same administration that couldn't keep its secrets about the Iran/Contra affair or the advisors in central america quiet, but they were able to prevent the press getting hold of the notion that the SDI was a bluff?

I don't think the Administration particularly knew. The way it was described to me is that very very few were in on the scam, that for the most part outside of the intelligence community pretty much nobody knew. Probably Bush I was the only high level type in the know.

But I guess we'll not know for sure for 50 years or so, when the documents are declassified.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 122

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 10:17:44 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Also not mentioned as one of Reagan's "accomplishments"- cutting basic R+ D funding and utterly screwing over a generation of scientists so that our research enterprise is still feeling the effects. I know this first hand- I and most of my friends in grad school were tossed on the garbage heap. Wanna know why so many of the kids in US schools graduate programs are from Asia? Its not because that they're smarter than the US kids- its that a job in the US that often pays below the poverty level such as being a graduate student and doesn't offer any better chance of finding employment than a college degree sucks and the US kids figured that there had to be something better to do. Before RR- getting a Ph.D. in the sciences was seen as a solid career path- you would always find a job if you could stick it through. But the mantra of "competitiveness" meant that this social contract was broken, that the existing generation would be shafted to pay for things like Star Wars- well, the next generation of would be scientists figured that out. There's no economic sense to a career where you train for 10 years and then may wind up jobless. Furthermore, cuts in basic R+D at the federal level did trickle down- industry cut back it's R+D too because federal R+D is what primes the pump.

And I'll tie this to Star Wars- because the bitter running jape was that Star Wars was getting funded so if you had a prayer of making your research fall under that category, you might have a shot at funding. Therefore, you had a lot of instant "believers" since that's where their paycheck was coming from. But there were plenty of articles by well respected physicists at the time that showed the whole idea was nonsense- so I don't see how it could have had much value as a ruse. It was just another way of funding the fat cats in the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about after he'd done so much to build it up.

This is why I know SDI was not a ruse. Why drive out of science and engineering the very people you would need to capitalize on the basic science SDI was supposedly doing.

The fact is the scientists on the ground likely knew, those of my acquaintance did, there was no chance of anything coming from SDI but they needed grants and the feds had shut down most every other research program.

Plus and here's the real kicker, SDI did not contribute to the collapse of the USSR. They didn't try and develop their own program but simply demanded we obey the terms of the ABM treaty. They didn't expand the size of their conventional forces, although the Afghan occupation required a small amount of replacement equipment be produced. They didn't even accelerate the modernization of their forces, the t-72 and t-80 remained their most modern MBT's and the Soviet Navy was just in the early stages of developing a blue water navy capable of force projection beyond their own territory. I think their own physicists and engineers told their leaders it was likely SDI would produce nothing so the Soviet leaders ignored it beyond some saber rattling over the ABMT.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 123

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 10:53:35 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Moonhead

That's the movie. Since it was on AMC- I found out that the movie didn't really have that much box office since it was released by the same studio the same year following Strangelove. Both movies are wonderfully done- Strangelove is wickedly funny, and Fail Safe is grim and scary. Surprisingly, I think Strangelove is the more technically accurate film.

Sam

Found some Ronnie quotes: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
Joking during a microphone check, unaware that he was being broadcast. [3] (1984-08-11)

Evolution] has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught.
Press conference at evangelical event in Dallas, Texas. (1980-08-22)

Any wonders why this guy cut basic science funding?

Also the evolution of SDI- a few facts for the debate can be found here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/230/4731/1249.full.pdf

This article describes the tenure of Keyworth as head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy OSTP- and Keyworth makes it plain that he was a yes man for Reagan- that Reagan came up with the idea of SDI without consulting physicists as to whether it would work in 1983, and that the centralized nature of his administration was such that if you didn't agree- you were fired. One of the folks who left was Nobelist John Bardeen- who did a lot of work on theories of superconductivity. (heck, even I remember that name from grad school- BCS theory or Bardeen Cooper Schiff?) Its the same kind of administration of Dubya- it's just striking how an article written 30 years ago could be so prescient about future administrations.

Although these guys campaigned against Communism with its top down control of an economy and consolidation of power restricting debate- that's the administration that they ran themselves. I'll bet the Russians saw it too.

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 7/10/2011 11:20:20 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 124

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 11:44:45 AM

erieangel

Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline

I wasn't able to vote in 1980, I was only 17. I do remember the devastation Reagan's administration brought. Reagan was the one who began closing the state mental hospitals, with no community plan for the care of the mentally ill at all. Prior to Reagan, the word "homeless" was virtually unknown, but suddenly we had hundreds and even thousands of homeless people in our cities, many of these people recently released from the state mental hospitals. This alone made Reagan an uncaring fuckup in my book.

As for SDI. There was no need to spend millions of dollars on such a ignoble endeavor, for what reason (be it a ruse or in expectation of success). The USSR was headed to decline due to their folly in Afghanistan. And a mere 30 years later, our leaders have forgotten the lesson the Russians learned in that part of the world.

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 125

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 11:48:16 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

This was the same administration that couldn't keep its secrets about the Iran/Contra affair or the advisors in central america quiet, but they were able to prevent the press getting hold of the notion that the SDI was a bluff?
I don't think the Administration particularly knew. The way it was described to me is that very very few were in on the scam, that for the most part outside of the intelligence community pretty much nobody knew. Probably Bush I was the only high level type in the know.

But I guess we'll not know for sure for 50 years or so, when the documents are declassified.

My bad then: I'd thought you meant that people higher up in the administration were in on the joke which I find impossible to credit.
(I do like the possibility DomKen raises that a few people within the scientific community were so outraged by Reagan giving that creationist bullshit a new lease of life that they were pretty eager to take him to the cleaners...)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Arpig)

Profile

Post #: 126

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 12:11:22 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Your whole post is opinion and no facts. Oh yes yer cuzin jimbob says so...well my neighbors hairdresser's aunt says your cuzin jimbob can't walk and chew gum at the same time and the closests he ever got to russia was rush running his mouth on the radio.
You post opinion and when challanged you want others to do the research that you are either too lazy or too incompetant to do...total punkass motherfucker. But then you are the punkass motherfucker who thinks that 61%= "damn near everyone and that justice is a function of who can afford the best lawyer

Once again, tommy boy. Show some data to back up your opinion.

As for justice being who can afford the best lawyer. that definition of My post is bullshit typed by someone with no comprehension as I was talking about public servants.

Keep goin lad

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 127

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 2:06:00 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

This was the same administration that couldn't keep its secrets about the Iran/Contra affair or the advisors in central america quiet, but they were able to prevent the press getting hold of the notion that the SDI was a bluff?
I don't think the Administration particularly knew. The way it was described to me is that very very few were in on the scam, that for the most part outside of the intelligence community pretty much nobody knew. Probably Bush I was the only high level type in the know.

But I guess we'll not know for sure for 50 years or so, when the documents are declassified.

My bad then: I'd thought you meant that people higher up in the administration were in on the joke which I find impossible to credit.
(I do like the possibility DomKen raises that a few people within the scientific community were so outraged by Reagan giving that creationist bullshit a new lease of life that they were pretty eager to take him to the cleaners...)

credit where credit is due, that was sam not I.

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 128

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 2:44:06 PM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

So it was. Mea culpa.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 129

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 3:21:50 PM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Let's clear one thing up- it wasn't a few people in the scientific community that were outraged- it was most of the community. By 1980, most scientists had assumed that the Scopes monkey trial was long dead history- and here was the President- suggesting that it wasn't. As the article I referenced points out- by the late 80s, the only science funding that was increasing was SDI and everything else was getting gutted. I do know some folks who got SDI money- most of them began believing that something could be done. But AFAIK- nobody's figured out how to track a nuclear sub underwater- and nobody has figured out how to separate decoys from warheads reliably- or come up with an answer to simply hardening the missile or ....One friend of mine worked on a massive laser which did manage to shoot down one missile- and it took a good chunk of the power of the eastern seaboard to do it. Other people took the money and closed their eyes, and just continued to work on what they were working on before hand.

The biggest failure of SDI is the lack of commercial spin offs. There have been some algorithms developed to find flaws in transformers that owe their genesis to SDI- but I'm damned if I can come up with some other defense project that's had so little commercial impact. I tend to think that's because most defense projects, even if occasionally kind of dumb, at least have the potential to work. They also start coming up with material and development requirements that occasionally can get used for something else. But SDI requirements were always so looney that they never did produce anything useful- and so most of what came out of it has been fantasy....very expensive fantasy. Stealth technology probably takes a close second though- the B-2 should go down as the most expensive useless weapons system ever- and that's one that also gets chalked up to RR.

Sam

(in reply to Moonhead)

Profile

Post #: 130

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 6:01:36 PM

errantgeek

Posts: 156
Joined: 6/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

As for SDI. There was no need to spend millions of dollars on such a ignoble endeavor, for what reason (be it a ruse or in expectation of success). The USSR was headed to decline due to their folly in Afghanistan. And a mere 30 years later, our leaders have forgotten the lesson the Russians learned in that part of the world.

There wasn't. I mentioned a few pages ago I met Gorbachev once during an engagement, I was also party to a brief but very candid and insightful discussion on what was going on inside the Politburo and Central Committee during the '70s and '80s. Reagan's net effect on the Cold War (including SDI) was so regressive we could very quickly have ended up in World War III save for a handful of very keen minds on the Soviet side working overtime.

The Soviet leadership (even the old guard hardliners) knew the USSR was in an economic world of shit, especially after the Brezhnev-, Andropov-, and Chernenko-era follies in Afghanistan. They were also working very hard to moderate the power of conservatives and hardliners -- especially the younger, crazier ones who were all too willing to push the button. They were making good headway, with Detente being extremely popular and Afghanistan being internally contentious and sapping conservative/hardliner credibility. Then Reagan became President, ended Detente, and escalated the Cold War, which served only to swing power and credibility back towards conservatives/hardliners. Gorbachev becoming General Secretary was something of a minor miracle, as his main competitor -- Viktor Grishin -- was an old guard hardliner, had a lot of support, and would most certainly not have put up with Reagan, but was pressured into not running against Gorbachev after Chernenko's death.

Gorbachev. whose reforms were greenlit out of necessity, ended up losing credibility and respect for being a reformer vis-a-vis Reagan, while the hardliners (some of whom were just scary) gained credibility thanks to Reagan's antics, but were still being snubbed or very begrudgingly given positions of power. These were the same guys who attempted the '91 coup and managed to oust Gorbachev for two days, until the army fell on Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's side.

Really, there you have it: the Soviets were already economically on their knees and fighting a two-front cold war, and at the bargaining table during Detente, and internal power was shifted towards progressives and reformers as a result. Reagan, with his "Cold Warrior" antics, ended Detente, pushed the Soviets away from the table and nearly caused a hardline government to come to power who could very imaginably pushed the button. The only people who got "played" or "taken as fools" were the American populace, who bought into "we have to win the Cold War!" bullshit.

(in reply to erieangel)

Profile

Post #: 131

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/10/2011 6:45:32 PM

Hippiekinkster

Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

Good post, errant.

I lived in Houston, Texass during the 80s. In the latter part of the decade there were entire apartment complexes boarded up. Lots of foreclosures. The Houston official bird, the Building Crane, nearly became extinct.

What does the above have to do with the demise of the CCCP? Think about it.

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to errantgeek)

Profile

Post #: 132

RE: Ronald Reagan - 7/11/2011 4:26:35 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Let's clear one thing up- it wasn't a few people in the scientific community that were outraged- it was most of the community.

Absolutely, but not everybody in the American scientific community worked on the SDI, just a few of them. That's all I meant. Sorry that wasn't clear.
(No argument with any of the rest...)

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to samboct)

Profile

Post #: 133