Reagan's "Peace Dividend"...?

Question

I agree that Reagan's policy of arms escalation was crucial to bringing about the demise of the Soviet Union. However, Reagan always promised that the short-term cost of a military build-up would yield substantially more long-term savings as a "peace dividend." Whatever happened to it? I agree that we have enemies now, but confronting them shouldn't be as costly as confronting an enormous foe such as the Soviet Union.

Answer 1

Well, the threats changed shape. The peace dividend did exist for a short time in the early 90's when the military was substantially cut back. Then came a war in the Balkans, that was raging with an inept UN unwilling to do anything. So NATO stepped in. The commitments grew. Terrorism changed to the threat status as those posed by nation states, and so the military needed to be, if not necessarily built up, then sustained. We are at war. People do not like us, and will not like us regardless of what we do. So, we must maintain a strong military, if not only to respond to attacks, but to deter them. You must also remember that strategic nuclear forces, which have been cut back drastically, actually save money. It is easier and less expensive to maintain nuclear forces, then a conventional force. Short answer, the world is now as dangerous, if not more so, then when Reagan was president. He just could not have foreseen that.

Answer 2

I guess the times are different? stuff costs more? soviet union i think was different then some of these radical Islamic governments. The soviets were never suicidal. btw REAGAN WAS A GREAT PRESIDENT!

Answer 3

Never existed. It was merely a propaganda ploy- to get people to sign on to Reagans' desire to build up the military at our expense. (And by the way, the USSR collapsed under it's OWN rotting weight. Bozo the clown could've been in Office then- and it would've gone down. Like Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan was born under a lucky sign. And he could sell ice to an eskimo- and get away with it).

Answer 4

we were also told that Iraqi oil would pay the cost of the war, now it's the fines the immigrants pay will offset the cost of the "comprehensive immigration policy". Just another republican lie to spend billions of our money with their buddies companies

Answer 5

I dont agree with your statement,the confrontation is not expensive , it is the nation building, which I doubt he'd agree with.