egafd.com

he is an example for hard working people,whats wrong with that or do you prefer fidel castro.

a few stats for you guys to play with

first recognised USSR nuclear weapon 1949

1959, USA has 15,468 USSR 1060

1967, USA has its max recorded stockpile at 30,893 USSR has 8339

1978, USSR overtakes USA with 24,243 to 25,393

1986, USSR amasses it max number at 40,723

by 2002 numbers had begun to deminish somewhat with US at 10,344 Russia 8579 - I guess they have dropped more since then

excellant chronology can be found in Michael Lights '100 Suns', great pictures too

yeah i've heard about the nuclear dumping ground before too

can't agree with you about plutonium toxicity, it only emits alpha particles which can't penetrate skin, you would need to ingest or inhale it for it to be dangerous.

Plus if you account for the first Abomb explosion approx 5kg was used, and life is pretty much back to normal there now

"I read somewhere, I forget where that the Russians only had a small nuclear missile capability at one time, which surprised me as I always thought they had about the same as the USA."

Diplodocus has kindly given you the figures. At the time of the Cuban missile crisis the US had far more nuclear weapons that the USSR. After that, the USSR built up their nuclear armoury to equal or exceed the USA. Can we please put this one to bed?

"Secondly I suggested that at a high and unseen level there was actually quite a good diplomatic relationship between the USA and USSR and that the real crisis came during the Cuban missile crisis when communication broke down."

Well your suggestion is wrong. It was only after the Cuban missile crisis that the "hotline" (which was actually a telex) was put in place between Washington and Moscow.

"Thirdly I suggested that the numbers of nuclear missiles reported to the public at any time on either side may have been inaccurate."

There's a difference between "reported to the public" and the figures hammered out at the SALT talks. That was a binding treaty between the USA and the USSR, and if you think those figures were wrong then I can't help you.

"Unfortunately it's not possible to discuss very much with you because for you the world consists of facts only and if anybody says anything which smacks of conjecture then you accuse them of fantasising as though it's some kind of crime to have ideas."

This started because you made a categoric comment that the USSR "only ever had a few dozen missiles", based on a book you once read, the title of which you cannot remember.

I think the book must have been referring to the period before the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy won the 1960 election by campaigning that there was a "missile gap" between the USA and the USSR, whereas the fact was that the USA had far more nuclear weapons than the USSR. Now you have been put right on this, so why can't you be happy that you have learned something?

'The United States experienced economic recession, but the economy of Japan prospered. The economies of many third world countries continued to make steady progress in the early 1970s, because of the green revolution. They might have thrived and become stable in the way that Europe recovered after the war through the Marshall Plan; however, their economic growth was slowed by the oil crisis'

Did you not read your own example? "Their economic growth was slowed by the oil crisis."

Until 1974 the world economy was doing quite well. The first oil crisis caused a major inflationary recession. The second oil crisis in 1979 compounded it. In the UK things were even worse because of our truly awful industrial relations.

You make it sound as if Thatcher came into power and started bashing the unions for no good reason, and closed down successful companies out of some sort of malign whim. It's pure fantasy.

"On the subject of investing in public utilities, the most obvious way is to buy National Savings Bonds. In the USA it was possible to buy government bonds, that's how you invest in the country rather than handing it over to a bunch of stock-brokers."

By buying government bonds you are just lending money to the state. You can do it the UK too, they are called gilts. It has nothing to do with investing in state run companies, except insofar as these companies need subsidies from the taxpayers to keep going.

"The kind of people advising a goverment weren't risk-takers or business people, but were people knew what was happening in their field, the main point that digital technology was getting smaller and cheaper. Their advice would have been impartial and obvious. "

Your idea presupposes that the experts could have predicted the future (they couldn't) and that governments would have had the courage to listen to them and put their predictions into action (it has never happened and it never will, because that's just not how governments work).

"Oh and in the late 1970s there was even a system called Prestel which was a bit like using the internet"

Prestel was a wanky system developed by the GPO, and is actually proof that you are wrong. It is what the internet developed by civil servants would have been.

"Does one of your brain cells know the other one on first name terms yet?"

Ah, the pleasures of rational discourse.

"Does one of your brain cells know the other one on first name terms yet?" when people start to lose the argument robches they tend to use insults,hence the above.