Message-ID: <41378B56.3040704@sdf.lonestar.org>
From: bkfsec at sdf.lonestar.org (Barry Fitzgerald)
Subject: [OT] Re: Re: New paper on Security and Obscurity

Choe Sung Cont. PACAF CSS/SCHP wrote:

>>The Great Cold War of the last century was not won through military
>>means.  It was not won by US political leaders.  It was won by Levi
>>jeans and bottles of Coke.
>>    
>>
>
>Ahhh, I love it when people try to make this argument.  I highly doubt that
>the denim "soft power" of America convinced Soviet Russia to abandon it's
>utopian, marxist dreams.  Soft power can not be mistaken for real power.
>Heck, suicide bombers and terrorists from Israel to the Phillipines wear New
>York Yankees hats and Nike tee-shirts while commiting their atrocities and
>yet, their hatred for the US is arguably greater than that of any Soviet .
>There is no substitute for a strong military.
>
>
>  
>
Actually, I think the REAL cause of the fall of the Soviet Union was 
neither Levi Jeans nor was it our strong military.  The real cause of 
the fall of the Soviet Union was the same as all countries that have 
fallen in the past: poor policy decisions on the part of Soviet 
political figures which eventually caused the people of the Soviet Union 
to reject their government.

We can argue about capitalist temptation and military strength til the 
end of the day and never reach a conclusion, but in the end it's 
countries that end up doing themselves in.

Glasnost was an attempt to merge western methods with the Leninist ways 
through reforms.  (Consider for a moment that the Stalinist structure 
that resulted in the Soviet Union wasn't even close to a Marxian 
system.  "Westernizing" Stalinism could only bring the Soviets closer to 
Marxism.)  It wasn't until the coup that people began to seriously 
consider removing the standing government.  Soviet totalitarianism 
(which is the antithesis of communism) was peeling away... removing the 
established dictatorial state was only a logical conclusion to that.  
Capitalism didn't wipe out the Soviet government after the coup, it was 
the standing government's rejection of reform that did.

Likewise, the argument is often made that the United States' military 
build-up led the Soviet Union into a bankrupt state and thus, according 
to the argument, massive military build-up is a good thing.  This 
argument *completely* ignores the fact that it was military build-up 
that caused economic problems for the Soviets.  Proponents of this 
argument seem to believe that the economic rules to be applied are 
entirely different between the Soviet Union and the United States and 
that our capitalist nature brings forth an endless well of production.

Newsflash: Ayn Rand was wrong.

Unrestrained build-up can cause problems regardless of the economic 
system.  It's a simple cost-benefit analysis.  Produce too much and you 
end up in a deficit.  Spend enough time in a deficit and you will 
eventually have nothing left.  Welcome to economics 101. 

I can't stand it when people try to explain major events like this away 
on one ideology or another.  (not directly pointed at either of you, 
simply a general statement)  The only truth is the truth that applies to 
all major events in history: it's never just one thing.  It's a 
combination of complex factors that, if not properly understood, will 
allow the uninformed to marshall us into the future, marching 
ferociously towards disaster.

             -Barry

Powered by blists - more mailing lists