why was it difficult for the soviet union to keep up with the militaty spending the U S?
151097
The Soviet Union replaced Imperial Russia after the Communist Revolution. From 1917, Soviet leaders tried to replace an agrarian economy with an industrial one. They actually might have succeeded, had it not been for World War II. (This is in purely economic terms; in human terms the revolution was a cruel failure.)\n\nA vast country, rich in natural and human resources, the crippling disaster of the war with Germany and Japan stretched the country beyond its limits. Throughout the rest of Soviet history, the country was never able to recover, nor could a centrally planned economy compete with the relative flexibility of capitalism.\n\nOn top of that, the economy of the USSR was never open. Because of a lack of foreign investment, among other reasons, the Soviet economy was always hamstrung in a way that the U.S. never was.\n\nThat being said, one wonders whether the United States could really "afford" to spend the vast sums on munitions that it did. We can imagine that the money might have been much more productively spent on schools, science and technology, medicine, and in aid to the developing world.
510925
The U.S. was totally not prepared for a war like Vietnam. If you've seen the movie Platoon, then you know that the troops had to fight in the jungle, definitely something they were not trained to do. Even though the US has learned guerrilla warfare from Korea, they were not ready for it to the extent of Vietnam. The government underestimated the Vietnamese capabilities and also did not realize that Russian and Chinese support of Vietname would be so detrimental to US.
231696
The U.S. had quite a bit of money at one time. And as all big wigs with money and clout do, they feel the need to put their two cents in pretty much everywhere. The American government feels they are strong enough to handle anything. That is so untrue. They stick their noses in foreign business and try to correct it (helping to form a new government in Iraq) and all the while, totally forget about their own citizens. We still have homeless veterans, We still have hungry children, we still have an awful drug problem. But is America spending their dollars to help those folks? Of course not. It's rediculous. A man once said to some folks, "Clean up your own backyard before you come talking about mine." America should listen to that statement.
1152192
The United States is running a huge balance of payments deficit by spending more overseas than it exports, which I take it includes its expenditure in Iraq. Also, all Governments borrow and presumably Bush is mortgaging the United States' future.\n\nAs an Englishman I am all too conscious that the United Kingdom's power in the world was ruined by its debt funded expenditure on the First and Second World Wars. The Cambridge historian Correlli Barnett wrote a series of books (e.g. "Audit of War") to point out that in the end there is no point in exercising miltary power at the expense of capital investment.
1064827
Actually, the US only has about half that many, but some are far more powerful than you say.  The real issue is that Russia still has around 15,000 and that not all are officailly accounted for.
667184
I presume you mean in World War II.  America, unlike the  European and Asian powers, had not been crippled by air raids and ground assaults.  American manufacturing resources could produce weapons and supplies without fear of being bombed, and American farmers could plant crops without worrying that his fields would turn into a battlefield.  Young American men could enlist in the military with great ease because they weren't needed at home to rebuild damage.  At the time, Trans-Atlantic invasions and bombing runs were so difficult they were practically impossible, and America, secure on the far side of the Big Pond, could just keep producing weapons, tools, food, and soldiers without fear of reprisal.
995792
The costs of maintaining its defense and internal security could not be supported by the economy, especially with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
1182256
The reason the Treasury Dept. (A.K.A. the U.S. gov't.) spends all this money re the Cuban Problem(?) is quite simple. Castro and his revolution, which laid the groundwork for the betterment of a very poor populace, displaced a cruel, corrupt, vicious and malleable close friend to U.S. interests ( bananas and sugar immediately come to mind) named Batista, the Cuban dictator. Batista was also a crony of the American mobs. (a.k.a. Mafia ). This was their playground which, by extension, meant the playground for American politicians. The problem is that the U.S. gov't. does not dominate Cuba anymore and they don't like that.Doesn't is seem odd that other democratic countries have full relations with Cuba while the U.S. happily welcomes boat load after boatload of less than prime immigrants free access to the U.S. soil just to spite Cuba ; but we have to wonder if this spite has backfired over the last 45 years.
51833
Because they were actually waging war against their favorite enemy. No, not the vietnamese but the soviets. During the war, vietnam was divided into two. the northern part wanted to have a communist government, the bottom half wanted a democratic one. Though, it was the vietnam war, it was actually more of a US - USSR war. it can be remembered that Soviet Union (USSR, now mainly Russia) was a communist government while the US believed democracy. And so ever so often their ideologies would clash in wars like this. But the vietnam war was certainly more than about belief, it was also the newest world event for a military arms fashion show. The north was "backed" by the soviets and the south by the Americans. This was an oppurtunity for them to showcase their advancement in warfare. Each side were eager to show to each other and to the world their "impressive" toys and guns and thus informally crown who among the two was the stronger world power. Of course, neither would easily surrender but in the end the americans retreated and the south was captured by the north. Now, the vietnam war is always glorified by the USA as a symbol of their continued struggle for democracy in the world but in truth in that war as it now with iraq, the US was merely showing off their deadly jewelry even if it means meddling with the internal affairs of other countries leaving them in destruction.
22083
The Soviets exhausted too much of their resources and drained their country. Socialism is great; in theory.
925441
WWII Set the stage for the US and the USSR to be the leading world powers.
838122
the abundant natural resources, the fact that we weren't constantly at war unlike the european powers, and the size of the country (both land and population).  the resources meant industry and commerce could grow rapidly.  the european powers were constantly fighting each other, and so spent far more of their money on miltary than america did.  the amount of land meant that we didn't rely on other countries for food, and the population meant that manufacturing capacity could grow without restrictions.
281855
The USSR was bent on world domination, and we had to maintain a balance of power or face nuclear war.The arms race and space programs and Vietnam,Korea were results. Domestically, anti war and civil rights issues nearly split the country.
422327
There are lots of reasons.  The infrastructure of the USSR was falling apart.  The cold war ate up all their resources.  They also had to implement some capitalistism in their economy so it wouldn't totally collapse, therefore not totally socialist.  The people were also terrified and pissed about being sent to Gulag.  Consult a history book for more.
1182668
It causes the government to spend money on war materials, many of which are made in the USA. The money is debt-financed, which suggests that the positive effect may only be short-lived.
115391
One way to structure an answer is to look at the resources the United States had and now has to deter Communism abroad. During the Cold War vitually our entire military capability was focused on deterring the Communist threat to the U.S.  Today in spite of 1.5 Communist nuclear equipped countries (China 1.0, N. Korea .5), virtually none of our defense budget is directed against this "threat".  Economic globilization has (since the wall came down in Germany) and will continue to "protect our six" from Communism
523927
The main reason actually started back in World War II.  Because many of the richer nations of that time were heavily bombed caused those countries to put much of their resources into rebuilding.  America was the only capitalist nation that did not have to rebuild the country and that gave America a big head start.