Ni Hao, Shuishou

It is conventional wisdom to say Reagan spooked Soviets to overspend on their defense. It is not true. Actually, The Soviet defense budget remained unchanged during Reagan years.

See here, Chris Floyd deals with this lie.

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06112004.html

Floyd says,

"Of all the false accolades now being heaped on Reagan's head, the one most repeated – even many of his erstwhile foes – is perhaps the most howlingly inaccurate of all: the notion that his military buildup led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe from Communist tyranny. A look at the facts, rather than the Hollywood fog that has always surrounded Reagan's career, shows clearly that Soviet military spending remained constant throughout Reagan's tenure and afterward; he didn't "force the Soviets into bankruptcy" by trying to match his buildup or anything of the sort, as the Atlantic Monthly pointed out – 10 years ago.

The Soviet economy was indeed dangerously unbalanced toward its military-industrial complex (as is ours today), and this indeed led to fatal economic rot; but this imbalance had existed since the days of Stalin. The decay it caused was a decades-long process; the Kremlin actually made virtually no budgetary response at all to the U.S. military expansion of the 1980s.

The Soviet Union collapsed because its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, liberalized the regime's repressive political, social and economic structures, allowing long pent-up frustrations with the unworkable system to emerge safely, without retribution. The Soviets' East European empire collapsed, without a shot, because Gorbachev made the decision not to defend it by force.

The only way Ronald Reagan could be credited with "the collapse of the Soviet Union" is if he personally selected Mikhail Gorbachev as the leader of the USSR. Not even Reagan's most ardent worshippers would make that preposterous claim – although if the current historical revisionism and posthumous deification continues, we may hear it from them yet."

I wonder what the US response would be if China (or any other nation) regularly sent a flotilla of warships to exercise off its shores?

What this demonstrates is just as you said, George. This is why the USA only attacks defenseless nations. Carrier strike groups are good for pounding such nations into dust, but against a modern military are dinosaurs.

Incidentally, the Kitty Hawk was "sunk" this summer in the Bay of Bengal by the Indian Air Force during a joint exercise. It was also surprised in October of 1999 by two Russian war planes in the Sea of Japan as it refueled. The Russian planes conducted two 500 mph runs at 200 feet right over the flight deck before the carrier could get up enough speed to launch a response.

I don't care if the Pentagon learns a lesson here. I hope America learns the lesson that it should stop being an empire and stop trying to be the world's only superpower. I'm not optimistic.

Wikinews states that this is a rehash of a 2006 story from the Daily Mail.

I have found no confirmation online for either version of it.

Thus, I tend to discount it. Fortunately!!! If it were true, the neo-con whine for all out war with China would reach ridiculous new levels of shrill.

Thanks for checking that, Bill. I've sent a note to the Daily Mail editor asking for clarification.

g.

George,

Some of us who listen in from Asia can say our l's perfectly fine. No need for the tired old racial jokes.

Lots of Luck!

Takahasi Kenji

Sorry — no offense intended. Indeed, tuned to an educated, middle-aged American ear, the joke was a jab at certain (Western) stereotypes. Dead-pan humor, if you will.

g.