The Soviet Union had a very capable military and poored a lot of money into it - that contributed to the poor economy. The military segment of the economy accounted for 25% of the Soviet Union's gross national product and have of all manufacturing. The Soviet military employed 10 million people and all of the best scientists. Without its military strength, the Soviet Union would have only been a very large but poor country and not a super-power at all. After the economy almost collapsed, we learned that while some of the weapons were extremely capable others were left to deteriorate. Those weapons the Soviet Union focused on though were a definite threat. Look at the SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs , the SS-25 ICBM, SS-24 rail mobile ICBM, the SS-N-20 SLBMS, the Delta and Typhoon class SSBNs and SS-N-24 SLBMs. The Blackjack was at one time the world's largest and heaviest bomber. I shudder to think of the SS N-21 SLCM and AS-15 ALCM cruise missiles. The Soviet Union was still a threat though and family members of those that died in the SCUB attack (R-11 and R-17 SRBM actually) at Dhahran would disagree that SCUDS were not a threat. They may be inaccurate, but inaccuracy does not matter if they are armed with a warhead of mass destruction which is possible. SDI forced the Russians to develop their own comparable system and it in turn weakened the already failing economy. While it may never have worked or at the mininum was billions of dollars and many years away, it would at least be more expensive (an unacceptable economic risk) to the Soviet Union than it was to the U.S.

>Dean:
>
>I think if you were with us on our tour of the Soviet Union, you would not have seen them as very capable of launching a nuclear war head to the US. I know we wearn't toured through their missle sites but you still get a pretty good feeling about the attitudes of the people when looking at things with your own eyes.
>
>We were in Bangcock when there was a coup of the government. You would never have know it. The tour buses kept on trucking, yet people reading the papers feared for our safety.
>
>My wife and I have visited 34 countries and our feelings have been the same in all countries. The people are the same as we are. They want a job, food, shelter, peace and a good life for their children. Its true that political leaders over peaceful people can still start a war but it is not something the people want to do. I am including the Arabs when I say this.
>
>They have done studies on the SCUD missles that Iraq used in the first Gulf War. The Patriot Missle was supposed to be effective against them. It was later determined that the SCUD Missles pretty much disintegrated during re-entry. This was known well before George started the second Gulf War.
>
>Re your press. Yes the Washington Post did a marvellous job of exposing Richard Nixon in the 70's but during the time that Colin Powell was at the UN trying to justify the war, the American press was pretty much behind him. The 2 themes were a) The President is right and they just don't get it and b) The UN is outdated and should be abandonned. It took at least 6 months after the war started before the press realized that they should have had a more balanced opinion. You had riots in the streets against the war but the press was pretty much behind the president. Our Prime Minister would not have had such a good ride.