[pm90]

Please stop digging further into the hole you've dug. The theory you posit is that Semiconductors were key to the fall of the Soviet Union, and many helpful people have pointed out fallacies in that argument. Your counter is not a very good one.

> I think most people on HN are familiar with the story of how computers won WWII, where Von Neumann used them to decipher German and Japanese encrypted communications. Also the Apollo missions were all controlled by circuits. Computers have been massively important (and expensive - the modern equivalent of ~100 billion USD was spent putting a man on the moon, and some of that includes developing IC technology) for a while.

Sure, they have been important, but again, they're not the key. As others have pointed out, the USSR was economically behind the US even right at the beginning of the cold war. Technically, the USSR was able to fight the Germans specifically because of the billions of dollars in Material that the US supplied to the USSR. The American view of the Soviet Union has been shaped by the simple fact of MAD with nukes and various made up scares (e.g. the space race), but if you look at economic and sociological data (e.g. life expectancy), the US was ahead of the USSR for the duration of the cold war.

As the GP has pointed out, reasonable people came to the conclusion that the system could not continue to exist without massive repression and tried to change it.

Your other arguments don't seem to make any sense, and are just referencing historical tidbits.

[OnlineGladiator]

> The theory you posit is that Semiconductors were key to the fall of the Soviet Union

Had the Soviets developed IC technology and the US failed to do so, do you still believe the Cold War would have turned out roughly the same? I suspect it would have bolstered the Soviet economy, allowed them to develop technology faster than their adversaries, and ultimately win. You're right, this is a guess, because it's impossible to know. I'm also not pretending it's an infallible argument, just as others have pointed out flaws in your theory (that the USSR failed because it lagged behind in terms of economic growth) elsewhere in this thread. I feel like you're focusing on the end of the Cold War, and I'm looking earlier and how it could have influenced those later conditions. It's like trying to understand Germany in the 1930's without considering WW1 - there's a reason it developed that way.

I don't think there was only 1 key thing that decided victory of the Cold War, I believe there were many key things. To clarify, a key thing is something important enough by itself to swing the pendulum either way. I already mentioned the development of IC technology by the US and the Chernobyl failure by the Soviets.

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective. Agree to disagree.

[pm90]

Your arguments are completely superfluous and I’m getting tired of repeating the same argument. Any impact of ICs would be minimal considering the massive shortfall in other areas of the Soviet Economy. If you want to speculate wildly on shaky ground, go ahead. But don’t think for a moment that you have some unique insight into how these things work: you clearly don’t, and are just trying to hold on to a ridiculous idea that you think you came up with.

[OnlineGladiator]

I never claimed it was my own idea - it's not. I just found it interesting and wanted to share it with people, and judging by the upvotes many other people also found it interesting. Isn't that why we're all on HN - to talk about things we find interesting?

I think you're looking at this as a debate instead of a conversation. I don't care whether or not you agree with me. I'm sorry you found the idea so distasteful.

[pm90]

It’s not the idea that I find distasteful as much as your attempt to defend it and make it appear as a difference of opinion rather than a difference in reality. A lot of the mess we are in today politically is because the media has become experts in teaching people how to defend fairly incredulous ideas, and when those ideas are shown not to hold any water, to end the argument with “let’s just agree to disagree”. That’s not how we reason about facts, and especially about history. Avoiding the mistakes of the past requires us to clearly understand the mistakes made by those who came before us. Theories that don’t hold up water faced with facts are just fantasies and must be treated as such.

[OnlineGladiator]

Okay. From your perspective you've already discredited my argument, and from mine I still believe what I said. Where do we go from here if we can't agree to disagree?

I'm sincerely trying to have a conversation here. I feel like you're frustrated because you're sure I'm wrong, and you're unable to convince me I'm wrong. But that's just the way the world works. In fact, it's a cornerstone of the very system you're so passionately arguing is superior (western democracy / capitalism - I realize these aren't the same but in this instance it seems relevant to blur the lines). Sometimes people are going to vote against you, even if they're "wrong."

Why not just accept that I'm wrong and move on? What makes you think it's even possible to change my mind at this point?

https://xkcd.com/386/

I can understand that you're frustrated, but at this point I'm not sure what your goal is unless you still think you can change my mind.

[pm90]

I'm not trying to change your mind as much as discredit your arguments. i.e. you are free to peddle whatever wacko theory you want to, but the specific arguments you try to give weight to your theory have been shown in this thread to not be very strong.

If you think your theory is still valid without any good arguments for it, you are free to continue spreading them. You will just not be taken very seriously by people who consider fact-based arguments as a foundation for reasoned arguments, which incidentally are many people in this particular forum.