----- Original Message ---- From: Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com>
1) Was there any reason for them to retain their conventional arms superiority other than the domination of central Europe?
2) Isn't it easier to grow quickly after widespread destruction?
3) Has anyone done any models of how they would have grown if they hadn't thrown all that money into conventional arms? Quick napkin math makes it seem like, if investment to growth in the non-military sector were held constant, they could have continued to outgrow the West, but that doesn't factor in diminishing returns, civilian spillage from military research, or any economic benefits of maintaining central Europe. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk