The cold war did wonders to advance humanity, it brought us the space race and all the technologies that came with it. It gave us greater weapons of defence (or war) which gave rise to spin off technologies. It made computers advance enormously.
Without it I’d probably be safe to say that we’d be in the early 70’s now.
But did the cold war push resources on both sides to their limits?
For instance, I wonder how more advanced our technology would be now if the treaty to make the Moon International Territory had never been signed, would the USSR & the USA have tried to colonize the moon?
That’s only one of the situations that the cold war could have thrived under, I am sure there are many more.
Actually consumption has increased greatly since the end of the cold war, hence this increase in Oil and gas prices and energy shortages. I think we are pushing our limits now.
As an aside to this
I recently saw an interview with an author who has an interesting theory that Empires only thrive when they over stretch and collapse when they understretch. His idea is that spending on Guns not butter improves the quality of a nation.
For example he Great Britain had spent itself into the hole on its military in the 19th century, the result it was the most important and strongest power in the world at that time. When it cut back military spending due to world war I and II it’s empire collapsed.
The USSR had cut back its spending in favour of social and economic reforms and lost its influence.
Resources doesn’t just mean natural resources such as oil. It means things like money, scientists, natural resources, the budget.
kingpengvin Interesting idea. But did the USSR revert to social and economic reforms because they ran out of ‘go’ to combat the USA, for instance, did they lose a goal?
kingpengvin
"For example [when] Great Britain had spent itself into the hole on its military in the 19th century, the result it was the most important and strongest power in the world at that time. When it cut back military spending due to world war I and II it’s empire collapsed."
This is utterly untrue (unless I’ve misunderstood your meaning.) When Great Britain was at its most powerful (roughly from after Napoleon to the 1870s when Germany became competitive) it spent very little on its military. Britain’s power came from its economic superiority, its colonial possessions and, to a lesser extent, its naval power which was largely uncontested. The British government was extremely thrifty and hated to spend money on the military.
Britain lost its technological edge because it didn’t educate its citizens as efficiently as the Germans did, and because its industry leaders ceased to be as innovative (a lot preferred to retire and live as landed gentlemen). Once other European powers got into the race for carving up the world’s markets, Britain did spend a lot arming itself. So did everyone else. The result was not prosperity for Britain, but World War I.
One could easily argue that had Britain not been forced to re-arm prior to World War II, it would have been able to invest in education and in modernizing industry in order to be more competitive with the United States. It’s also true, of course, that it lacked some of the natural resources that the U.S. had and therefore was more dependent on its empire.
To say that Britain lost its empire b/c it didn’t spend enough on its military is also absurd. Britain lost its empire b/c living in Asia and Africa ceased to be willing to be ruled by Britons. Have you noticed how much larger the population of India is than the population of Britain?
If there is anything to be learned from the history of Britain (and there is quite a lot), it’s that when a nation is on top and way ahead of many competitors–as Britain was in the nineteenth century and as the US is today–the very best thing it can do is to invest in education and research and development so as to keep its edge. This is what economists such as Lester Thurow have been urging for years. Since empire-building became crucial to late-nineteenth century economies, Britain probably could not have avoided the pre-World War I military build-up (and, as I said, it already had education deficits). But we in the US today have no pressing need for a military build-up.
Point #1: There is not a finite amount of money in the world, as it is an idea of wealth that society attributes to people who have those little green slips of paper.
Point #2: I really doubt that the Cold War would have damaged any supply of scientists. If anything, it would have encouraged people to go into R&D. However, the end of the Cold War could have resulted in a lower numbe of scientific jobs… but I haven’t the statistics on hand, so I wouldn’t know for certain.
However, the budget (different from money) could have felt a bit of stretching… since America was constantly competing with Russia, there would have been a lot of emphasis on spending, even when there wasn’t enough money for those expenditures.
I think the worst effect of the Cold War was national pride. For decades, people have been stressing “Down with Russia!” and “Go to hell, you Pinkos!”. Then the CW was over… there was nobody else to rail against, 'cept America.
“Britain lost its empire b/c living in Asia and Africa ceased to be willing to be ruled by Britons. Have you noticed how much larger the population of India is than the population of Britain?”
That is a very strange view of colonialism. The Asian and African colonies were not exactly willing partners in the colonial process, they were subjugated. The British were able to take and hold their empire through force and the ability to move their armies anywhere quickly (by 19th century standard) due to their Naval superiority.
When they ceased enforcing their control, due to the enormous losses in material and manpower during the second world war, they had to let the colonies go. On top of that the new economic power house, the United states made strong suggestions that Britain give up it’s holdings in Africa and eventually Asia.
U.S. military spending due only to the cold war wasn’t that high. The budget of the military didn’t change very much after the Cold War. So I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the Cold War pushed us to the limit. The Soviets, maybe, but it was really just a blip on the economy of the U.S. The entire military budget at its peak in the U.S. only hit about 300 billion dollars, out of a multi-trillion dollar economy. And of that, perhaps only 20% or so could attributed solely to the cold war.
Note that the cold war is completely over, and yet the U.S. military still has to maintain fleets of aircraft carriers, huge land forces in Europe and Asia, etc. And it should.
I agree with the concept that nations need a grand unifying activity to hold them together. It doesn’t have to be military conquest. Exploration and expansion through occupying newly discovered lands (and in the case of many countries, exploiting the material and natives of that land) has maintained great empires for long periods of time.
But once a country stops looking outward and starts navel gazing, it’s a prescription for decay.
kingpengvin “That is a very strange view of colonialism”
Well, I admit I was being a little wry with you and, a result, possibly misleading. I certainly didn’t mean that India and other British colonies had become colonies by consent. But I do think, in India at least, the British persuaded themselves and the elite class of native administrators with whom they collaborated that British rule was beneficial and appropriate. If you look at the history of British India you find that there was actually surprising little force used–though just enough to get the point across when problems arose. So it’s misleading to suggest that it was British military might that made British imperialism possible and even more misleading to suggest that decolonization could have been prevented had the British only been able to stock up on their military. In fact, navy aside, British military might was as strong as it was because of the Indian army which was enormous. Decolonization happened at around the same time in a lot of places under European rule. That was partly because nationalist movements in colonized countries such as India persuaded spread amongst those elite administrative classes and ultimately the rest of the populace. This meant that decolonization was inevitable in India and elsewhere: and they could come with or without bloody wars of independence.
The way you tell it, the British either blundered or were unlucky with their military spending and the Americans came along to tell them the right thing to do. Where are you getting this from? Have you ever heard of Gandhi?
Anyway, my larger point is that, unless I misunderstood your restatement of his thesis, the person you heard speaking about the relation between British military spending and British world power could not have been more wrong.
As far as Britain goes, you are pretty close to dead wrong. At the true height of its power, Britain held remarkably little territory overseas. It certainly was predominant in much of the world, but its power was indirect - primarily economic, with the Royal Navy there to back up Britain’s right to trade (and to keep other European powers out of there). For example, Britain Latin America was decidedly within the British sphere of influence for most of the 19th Century, but Britain only held Guyana and some Carribean islands. The ideal for the British was China - they held great influence, but only owned an extremely tiny colony at Hong Kong.
The expansion of the British Empire to directly control large land masses and large populations occurred pretty late in the game, and was a result of British weakness, not strength. Nations like Germany were pressing hard at the British informal spheres of influence, so Britain tried to lock them out completely by taking over the colonies. BTW, in many places, the colonized were willing partners - the British were masters at co-opting the local rulers and elites.
Back to the OP. When you consider the amount of U.S. GDP devoted to defense during the Cold War, the answer is obviously no, the Cold War did not push U.S. resources to the limit. It probably did Russia’s, which is likely why they lost. As for scientists, the Cold War did absorb a huge amount of the scientific resources of the U.S. - I remember when my brother got his Ph.D. in chemical engineering in the mid-80’s, it was very hard for him to find a non-Defense Department-funded job. However, so much of the military-funded research led to civilian advances (the internet and GPS spring to mind), Cold War scientific spending probably helped much more than it hurt.