Seppo, you make a critical point about the arsenal of the former Soviet Union. I will use it to make the point to Steven that that it exactly why our transition policy versus China is reportedly going slower and more smoothly.
Contrast the still paltry nuclear arsenal of the Chinese ( a dozen or so ICBM's pointed at us) versus what we faced in the 80's (many thousands of them). Sure, it would have been nice to have had the luxury of helping to make the transition more smooth for the Russians. We couldn't afford that luxury at the time.
I don't agree with all that Reagan was about, but I will take his policies and results over those of the current administration any day of the week (if you can corner them long enough for them to actually tell you what their specific policies are). As a result of our successes in outlasting an aggressive and heavily armed nuclear adversary, we are, as you suggest, faced with a new set of problems to tackle. Problems that Bill & Co. are terribly ill equipped to manage.
Maybe in my past career I was too close to the action and saw the true face of the terror and threat that we were dealing with. To argue that because of the corruption and incompetence of the Soviet leaders, their demise was as inevitable as it was obvious......what, Steven, does that portend for the U.S.? Is it equally inevitable then that our corrupt and incompetent leadership has us careening down the same path?
Chilling, isn't it?
Regards,
JS |
