Cold War II -- Russia tests anti-anti-missile missile

[MattR]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_re_eu/russia_missile_test_10;_ylt=AicDbxqelXOBe6Oi8DecGMAE1vAI

Russia tested new missiles Tuesday that a Kremlin official boasted could penetrate any defense system, and President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe would turn the region into a "powder keg."

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and it also successfully conducted a "preliminary" test of a tactical cruise missile that he said could fly farther than existing, similar weapons.

"As of today, Russia has new tactical and strategic complexes that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," Ivanov said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "So in terms of defense and security, Russians can look calmly to the country's future."

Well, Bush's authoritarian friend has apparently been working on these babys in secret while continuing his stranglehold on executive power in the Kremlin.

I'm shocked, shocked that our efforts to put anti-missile technology in the region has caused Iran, Russian, and China some concern.

Bad foreign policy, thy name is Bush.

[spejic]

There is a distinct problem with anti-ballistic missile technology. It is incredibly expensive, and incredibly cheap to counter. If we really were to get into a missile cold war, we would spend ourselves to failure.

[Ismitje]

As long as the discussion of this topic focuses on the viability of missile systems and not the politics related thereto, we'll keep the thread here.

And boy, what a rich topic to discuss!

[Shaster]

There is a distinct problem with anti-ballistic missile technology. It is incredibly expensive, and incredibly cheap to counter. If we really were to get into a missile cold war, we would spend ourselves to failure.

Totally agree. Also any anti-missile system has to involve some kind of sattalite functions, and we all know if those sattalites are dead, how good the system will work.

[Scarecrow]

I can't say as I blame Russia, part of keeping the balance is by negating any advantage the other side may have. And while the Cold War may be over, there is a prudence to making sure that you do not fall too far behind your biggest 'rival'.

[yasik19]

I can't say as I blame Russia, part of keeping the balance is by negating any advantage the other side may have. And while the Cold War may be over, there is a prudence to making sure that you do not fall too far behind your biggest 'rival'.

it's the "anything you can do i can do better" mentality that will hurt Russia in the end.

[MattR]

Well, the anti-missile technology that the United States currently plans on deploying is rife with issues. In short, it is a contractor-fueled boondoggle.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/22/MNGHDIVV0B1.DTL

The administration's proposal, which comes amid rising concerns about Iran's suspected program to develop nuclear weapons, calls for installing 10 anti-missile interceptors at a European site by 2011. Poland and the Czech Republic are among the nations under consideration.

The program's numerous critics say it is behind schedule and cannot meet even this limited challenge.

"It has been doing very poorly," said Philip Coyle, the former head of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation. "They have not had a successful flight intercept test for four years."

So, basically, we're deploying a system in Czechia that doesn't work. It is no surprise that Russia started an arms race, it was to be expected. Russia's solution isn't too much of a surprise -- multiple warheads are even more difficult to identify, predict, and intercept than a single big ICBM, but it is probably a bit too expensive, as decoy balloons have been shown to confuse the interceptor vehicles. Heck, even when they put a sensor on the targetted missile, they still missed.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/12/15/missile-defence-041215.html

The first full test in nearly two years of a multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile shield failed Wednesday when one missile launched but a second shut down before leaving the ground, the Pentagon says.
The Missile Defence Agency has tried to do the $85-million US test several times this month, but it's aborted each attempt before launch due to weather or technical glitches.

In Wednesday's test, a target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched from Kodiak, Alaska, shortly before 1 a.m. ET, according to a statement from the agency.

U.S. President George W. Bush vowed to get the system running by the end of the year. A second missile that was to intercept it after being fired from an atoll in the middle of the Pacific Ocean instead shut down, the agency said.

The Pentagon, which spends about $10 billion US a year on the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, blamed an "anomaly" of unknown origin.

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article.ns?id=dn11014&feedId=weapons_rss20

A Russian general has criticised a US plan to place an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, calling it a threat to Moscow – but a senior US official denied that was its purpose.

"Our analysis shows that the placing of a radio locating station in the Czech Republic and anti-missile equipment in Poland is a real threat to us," said space forces commander Lieutenat-General Vladimir Popovkin, according to Russian news agencies...

Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the MIT, US, also doubts that the proposed installations would be effective against a threat from Iran. He says that by the time Iran developed intercontinental ballistic missiles that could conceivably strike the US, they would probably have long-range missiles to knock out the Eastern European facilities first.

Postol thinks that this may be just a plan to involve as many countries as possible to ensure the survival of MDI. "I read it as having little or no technical merit," Postol told New Scientist.

Indeed, Postol doubts the effectiveness of ground-based interceptors in general, as the interceptors' infrared sensors could be fooled by decoy balloons released with a warhead.

[Anthony]

I would say screw Putin, but I am alergic to Polonium.

[spejic]

it's the "anything you can do i can do better" mentality that will hurt Russia in the end.But they don't have to do as good as us. This is just another form of asymmetrical warfare. The kinds of thing the Russians (and other owners of ICBMs) can do to get their payloads to their targets are far cheaper than the things we have to do to defeat them.

[Flyin Ryan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18945566/site/newsweek/

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conventional wisdom in Washington has been that a new cold war wasn’t possible because the vast ideological differences that separated America and Russia no longer existed. But is that so true any longer? Once an eager student of Washington’s free-market, democratic reforms, the Russia of today has become another beast entirely, says a senior Bush administration official. The Putin government has come to operate by the rules of a new form of fascism, a blend of open markets and state control. And don’t try to talk to elite Russians about the glories of democracy any more: they’ve had their earful of advice from America. But perhaps nothing is more worrisome than the current clash represented by Bush’s missile shield and Putin’s countertest. Russia is “slowly becoming a revisionist power, seeking to revisit the settlements of ’89 to ’91” that ended the cold war, the official said. “That’s an unsettling thought.” Among these: the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty limiting troops and weapons in Europe.

This is, sadly, a shift in the post-cold war world that is becoming all too familiar. Compared to a decade or so ago, the belief in the messianic power of democracy and markets has reached a new low. Bush has helped the trend along by allowing Iraq to disintegrate from a would-be model into a morass, turning the country into perhaps the most powerful example of democracy’s drawbacks since the Weimar Republic, and by hypocritically embracing the rhetoric of democracy while giving big hugs to its most flagrant detractors, like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Not only Russia but China—Washington’s other great cold war rival—has pressed the idea of an alternative model on the world (Beijing has shown, at least for the moment, that you can have a booming market economy with totalitarian rule).


Condoleeza Rice is such a disgrace of a diplomat. I read on an economics website last night, the writer said "Rice flew over to seal the deal." He then pointed out "When Rice is sent over to get a deal, does she ever actually get a deal?" Read that article and her exchanges with the Russian Foreign Minister, he's running circles around her and she does a stupid joke as rebuttal. If this were the Cold War she would die of a CIA-imposed heartattack due to sheer stupidity.

As far as technical capabilities, I agree with the synopsis on this thread. As an engineer, the idea of an anti-missile system strikes me as sketchy at best. The controls system alone, just to keep the anti-ballistic missile system to home in and destroy an ICBM, has to be an absolute nightmare.

[odessit19]

I am really curiuos what friggin targets in Europe they will target? What threats do they have from Europe?:confused: As far as American surface-to-air missiles, aren't they meant to stop Iranian missiles? Why is Russia so paranoid, it's not like US is about to attack them.

[Anthony]

Why is Russia so paranoid

800 years of history, combined with the fact that in the period of less than 20 years, they have gone from the state that was feared or idealized (depending on your politics) by everyone on the planet to a place that has become the punchline to a joke.

One reason for keeping the Russians involved with the ISS has been to give them something to be proud of.

Putin is saber rattling for domestic political purposes.

[Scarecrow]

800 years of history, combined with the fact that in the period of less than 20 years, they have gone from the state that was feared or idealized (depending on your politics) by everyone on the planet to a place that has become the punchline to a joke.

One reason for keeping the Russians involved with the ISS has been to give them something to be proud of.

Putin is saber rattling for domestic political purposes.

Never underestimate, nor forget about the Bear.

Russia is going to have some interesting and trying times, you can't just change your whole Govt. over from one form to another and expect results. Of course the corruption doesn't help.

Anyway, back to the topic and the forum, I haven't read much about the test results or the specs for the test. I am interested in them.

[Shaster]

For Russian moved away from Liberal Democracy, it is simple. It experienced terrible results from that movement. The promotion of democracy is more and more like a tool to bring down potential big country and take it apart. Pluriail politicans can argue to death that lead the country into a paralysis chao. Only a strongman like Putin can somehow get it back and at least restoring a little pride lost.

For technical reason, anti-missile system is tough to build and easy to break. A lot of money to threw away.

[Anthony]

The promotion of democracy is more and more like a tool to bring down potential big country and take it apart.

Give me a break. Every tyrant great and small from Mao to Lee to Hitler to Pinochet threw that line out. Asian despots argue that democracy goes against "Asian Values". Latin American despots claim their people are "not ready". European despots claimed that democracy violates tradition or religion.

Did democracy fail in Russia? It is failing, though I think it is not done yet (I think Russia will develop a sort of illiberal democracy). And I must admit that I have grown to believe that most of the planet is incapable of democratic self government (and I was someone who until about a year ago believed that democracy is a universal value).

But look at the richest countries on the planet. These are the top 25 (26 actually) states by per capita GDP (purchasing power parity). What do you notice?

1 Luxembourg 80,471 2005
2 Ireland 44,087 2005
3 Norway 43,574 2005
4 United States 43,444 2005
5 Iceland 40,277 2005
— Hong Kong, China 38,127 2005
6 Switzerland 37,369 2005
7 Denmark 36,549 2005
8 Austria 36,031 2005
9 Canada 35,494 2005
10 Netherlands 35,078 2005
11 United Kingdom 35,051 2005
12 Finland 34,819 2005
13 Belgium 34,478 2005
14 Sweden 34,409 2005
15 Qatar 33,049 2005
16 Australia 32,938 2004
17 Singapore 32,867 2005
18 Japan 32,647 2005
19 Germany 31,095 2005
20 Italy 30,732 2005
21 France 30,693 2005
22 Israel 30,464 2005
23 Republic of China (Taiwan) 30,084 2005
24 United Arab Emirates 29,142 2003
25 Cyprus 29,105 2005


Two are small oil rich states (Qatar and the UAE)
One is a small authoritarian city state (Singapore)
One is a special case (Hong Kong)
The rest are all democracies based on the rule of law.

[cleansheetbsc]

All this silliness reminds me of this famous quote (especially after Bush uttered "The Cold War is over":

Basil Exposition: The Cold War's over.
Austin Powers: Ah, finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh, comrades? Eh?
Basil Exposition: Austin, we won.
Austin Powers: Oh, groovy, smashing. Yay capitalism!

[Shaster]

Give me a break. Every tyrant great and small from Mao to Lee to Hitler to Pinochet threw that line out. Asian despots argue that democracy goes against "Asian Values". Latin American despots claim their people are "not ready". European despots claimed that democracy violates tradition or religion.

It is simple. Someone in the power of dictatorship of course will argue for any power-sharing to others, but consider those opinions not from the one in power.

For example, China. The number 1 pre-condition for a workable democracy is that something called "common national identity". So when West is genuinely hoping and promoting a democracy in China, do you should also hope, or at least not undermine, the building of that common national identity? So far, West is also promoted Tibetan independance, Uyghur independance, Taiwan independance, Hong Kong independance, Manchuria independance and Inner Mongolia independance. So any movement toward your suggestion will result a fall of current China. Didn't same thing happen in USSR?

Did democracy fail in Russia? It is failing, though I think it is not done yet (I think Russia will develop a sort of illiberal democracy). And I must admit that I have grown to believe that most of the planet is incapable of democratic self government (and I was someone who until about a year ago believed that democracy is a universal value).

I don't think it is going to happen. The future of Russia probably is more assembling today's China. An open economic system and a more strictly control authoritarian. You can have election. But this is it.


But look at the richest countries on the planet. These are the top 25 (26 actually) states by per capita GDP (purchasing power parity). What do you notice?

1 Luxembourg 80,471 2005
2 Ireland 44,087 2005
3 Norway 43,574 2005
4 United States 43,444 2005
5 Iceland 40,277 2005
— Hong Kong, China 38,127 2005
6 Switzerland 37,369 2005
7 Denmark 36,549 2005
8 Austria 36,031 2005
9 Canada 35,494 2005
10 Netherlands 35,078 2005
11 United Kingdom 35,051 2005
12 Finland 34,819 2005
13 Belgium 34,478 2005
14 Sweden 34,409 2005
15 Qatar 33,049 2005
16 Australia 32,938 2004
17 Singapore 32,867 2005
18 Japan 32,647 2005
19 Germany 31,095 2005
20 Italy 30,732 2005
21 France 30,693 2005
22 Israel 30,464 2005
23 Republic of China (Taiwan) 30,084 2005
24 United Arab Emirates 29,142 2003
25 Cyprus 29,105 2005


Two are small oil rich states (Qatar and the UAE)
One is a small authoritarian city state (Singapore)
One is a special case (Hong Kong)
The rest are all democracies based on the rule of law.

Is Iraq better now and then?
Is Philipine better now and then?
When colonist strict control of Hong Kong, authoritarian Singgapore, military-junta dominant South Korea, and dictors Iron fist Taiwan went to economic maricle, where are the BIGGEST democracy of the world India did back then economically?

When Taiwan moved into two-party system, it was so bad because everything evolve on Indpedance or not split, their economy and living standard actually took a dive.

Japan and Germany are and were economic and industry powerhouses today and back then under imperialists and Nazis.

Today's Japan, Singapore is essentially one party system. In case of Japan, when a mayor criticized PM to go war shrine, he was gunned down and killed by right wing supports of LDP. Is that nice feature of democracy?

For those countries, like UK and France, how many of the economic accumulation and weath were coming from stealing from their vast colonies acround world?

For those "new" countries, like USA, Canada, Australia, etc., how much the per capital benefit from less popluation vs. abanduant resources due to newcomers effectively wipe off old natives?

If you want to compare more in detail, how about a big country like China and India who have big population base with un-democracy and democracy? Or any mid size population country, or small country like a Kuwait with other small democracy?

Also this per captial GDP is flawed. For example, if I am the King of Burnei, and I sold oil for $100B revenue per year. I can hold all the money to myself and not a penny to my people, or I can distribute evenly to my people. What difference on per capital GDP? None.

Sorry to derail the topic. :p

[Anthony]

It is simple. Someone in the power of dictatorship of course will argue for any power-sharing to others, but consider those opinions not from the one in power.

For example, China. The number 1 pre-condition for a workable democracy is that something called "common national identity". So when West is genuinely hoping and promoting a democracy in China, do you should also hope, or at least not undermine, the building of that common national identity? So far, West is also promoted Tibetan independance, Uyghur independance, Taiwan independance, Hong Kong independance, Manchuria independance and Inner Mongolia independance. So any movement toward your suggestion will result a fall of current China. Didn't same thing happen in USSR?

Is it? Most countries in the West have decentralizing factors too. The US for its first century was split north v. south and since then with hyphenated Americans. The UK is split into four "nations" and even within split further. Germany and Italy were not national states 150 years ago. What is Spain's "national identity"? Ask the Basques or the Catalans. How about Canada? All those countries had and continue to have decentralizing and even sucessionist movements. There is a good chance that the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belgium will no longer exist in 20 years. Yet all are liberal democracies.

Sorry, but your reasoning is nothing more than apology for dictatorship. China has had 2200 years of strong centralized government (with periods of it breaking up to be sure) in the name of "national unity." Where is it? The argument is a crock.



I don't think it is going to happen. The future of Russia probably is more assembling today's China. An open economic system and a more strictly control authoritarian. You can have election. But this is it.

We will see, though I think Russia will remain an authoritarian kleptocracy with elections for a long time.

Is Iraq better now and then?
Is Philipine better now and then?

With Iraq (which is one of the palces that has really shaken my belief in democracy as a universal value) I say wait 50 years.

As for the Phillipines, better than what? When it was a US possession? When it was conquered by the Japanese? When it was under Marcos? I would say yes.


When colonist strict control of Hong Kong, authoritarian Singgapore, military-junta dominant South Korea, and dictors Iron fist Taiwan went to economic maricle, where are the BIGGEST democracy of the world India did back then economically?

Singapore and Hong Kong, as mirco states, are a special case. As for South Korea and Taiwan, they had great growth to be sure, but they did generally allow freedom in the economy. In any event, once they reached a certain point, the people wanted political freedom to go along with their economic freedom. And there is a reason for that, and I if I lived there would prefer today to the military time.

As for India, they chose a socialist road democratically and paid for it. You live you learn.

Japan and Germany are and were economic and industry powerhouses today and back then under imperialists and Nazis.

Let's not overstate Japan or Germany's economic power in 1940. Part of their growth was dead cat bounce, and part of it was cooked books. Japan was economically very backward in 1940 (though they had good fighter places and torpedoes to our chagrin). In any event, both countries were wiped out in WWII and had to start from nothing.

Today's Japan, Singapore is essentially one party system. In case of Japan, when a mayor criticized PM to go war shrine, he was gunned down and killed by right wing supports of LDP. Is that nice feature of democracy?

Political assassinations happen. It is an unfortunate feature sometimes of democracies. Ask Pim Fortyn or Anna Lindh.

For those countries, like UK and France, how many of the economic accumulation and weath were coming from stealing from their vast colonies acround world?

Not much actually.

For those "new" countries, like USA, Canada, Australia, etc., how much the per capital benefit from less popluation vs. abanduant resources due to newcomers effectively wipe off old natives?

Considering that the US has a population greater than all but 2 other countries, I don't think our lack of population is a factor. Our western lands were considered a desert, yet they now are the breakbasket of the world. Australia and Canada have some nice resources, but most of those countries landmass is considered wasteland. It was built through hard work and a feeling that you can keep what you make.

If you want to compare more in detail, how about a big country like China and India who have big population base with un-democracy and democracy? Or any mid size population country, or small country like a Kuwait with other small democracy?

By pretty much any standard, the democratic country is richer than the undemocratic country. For no other reason than at some point the leaders have to face the people. You can argue what it all means or even if it is good. You can argue that it is all a mirage (like the Marxists do). You can argue that money is a prerequiste for democracy, or that democracy is a prerequisite for riches, or that maybe the truth is in between.

Also this per captial GDP is flawed. For example, if I am the King of Burnei, and I sold oil for $100B revenue per year. I can hold all the money to myself and not a penny to my people, or I can distribute evenly to my people. What difference on per capital GDP? None.

Which is why I noted that on the GDP list, you have exceptions. Especially a small resource rich country.

But most of your arguments are nothing but the usual apologies for dictatorship. We heard them from Diaz, from Lee, from Mao and Stalin, and you hear it today still. I am not saying that we should go off on any more foreign adventures (Iraq has cured me of that permanently) but I will not like it. I do not like the idea that we continue to support dictators in places like Pakistan because the alternative is worse. I am a realist enough to accept it, but I do not have to like it.

But it does not change the fact that most rich countries are democracies, and democracies tend to be rich. Cause or effect? Who knows (I think it is a little of both). But that is the way of the world today.

[Shaster]

Is it? Most countries in the West have decentralizing factors too. The US for its first century was split north v. south and since then with hyphenated Americans. The UK is split into four "nations" and even within split further. Germany and Italy were not national states 150 years ago. What is Spain's "national identity"? Ask the Basques or the Catalans. How about Canada? All those countries had and continue to have decentralizing and even sucessionist movements. There is a good chance that the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belgium will no longer exist in 20 years. Yet all are liberal democracies.

Put this way, the Old China Empire was on par with the Old Roman Empire. The decentralizing factors shaped what today's European countries, abeit you have some of nasty fights in Scotlands, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Basques in both Spain and France, and most recently Balkans. This is caused by centrifugal forces winning out. China, by the contrast, somehow after Han Empire fall down as Roman Empire, was able to survive through a unifying administrative class of Confusian literatti combining with strong military forces in China Proper and Inner Asia. So when Europe Union is talking about a tigher integration, China which is holding as one piece, of course will see any decentralizing efforts from West (especailly with minority rights for self-determination) with a deaf ear.

Sorry, but your reasoning is nothing more than apology for dictatorship. China has had 2200 years of strong centralized government (with periods of it breaking up to be sure) in the name of "national unity." Where is it? The argument is a crock.

Argument? The most recently survey has 87% of Chinese cizitens satisfying with what they have right now. Of course, 13% of unhappy people amounts about 200M and bigger than most of countries in the world. Asking the question that do you want an American style of liberal democracy, the answer is a resounding NO.


We will see, though I think Russia will remain an authoritarian kleptocracy with elections for a long time.

Agree.


With Iraq (which is one of the palces that has really shaken my belief in democracy as a universal value) I say wait 50 years.

The first time China tried a democracy is at 1911. Doesn't work out that time. Now almost 100 years later.

As for the Phillipines, better than what? When it was a US possession? When it was conquered by the Japanese? When it was under Marcos? I would say yes.

Currently Phillipine democracy involves a yearly route called People's Power.

Singapore and Hong Kong, as mirco states, are a special case. As for South Korea and Taiwan, they had great growth to be sure, but they did generally allow freedom in the economy. In any event, once they reached a certain point, the people wanted political freedom to go along with their economic freedom. And there is a reason for that, and I if I lived there would prefer today to the military time.

South Korea has one thing on their side--they are a nation-state. Rather, you can argue their nationalism tends to go a bit too far. There is not likly an identity crisis will pull the country apart (which is already pulled apart as a country). The only big concern is that if they still need to go after Koreans who were Japanese collabrators who hold the powers all the way until now. Taiwan is a totally different issue. You have a unification/independance debate. So social justice, official corruption, rule of law, etc. are NO longer matter. You draw a line at pro-China and anti-China.

Also when you credit some countries like Japan liberial democracy, there are a LOT of social aspects are not as you think it is. For example, a Japanese christian may also go to a Shintao ceremony and told people he/she is a Shintao believer. Openly admit Christian may mean a social sucide. But in a "dictatorship" China, you may have no such problem to be a Christian.

As for India, they chose a socialist road democratically and paid for it. You live you learn.

Here you big example. Maybe just because India's huge popluation base, no matter what kind of government system they have, they may still a poor country for a forseeable feature?

Let's not overstate Japan or Germany's economic power in 1940. Part of their growth was dead cat bounce, and part of it was cooked books. Japan was economically very backward in 1940 (though they had good fighter places and torpedoes to our chagrin). In any event, both countries were wiped out in WWII and had to start from nothing.

People may point out that Germany back in 1930-40 were still a "democracy". So don't know how we can distigush today or yesterday. As for China, in most of the history, China was one of the most rich country in the world. It was fall down very hard, but looks it is one the way going back to top of the world again. Don't know how democracy contributes to that.


Considering that the US has a population greater than all but 2 other countries, I don't think our lack of population is a factor. Our western lands were considered a desert, yet they now are the breakbasket of the world. Australia and Canada have some nice resources, but most of those countries landmass is considered wasteland. It was built through hard work and a feeling that you can keep what you make.

Compare with old world, buddy.

By pretty much any standard, the democratic country is richer than the undemocratic country. For no other reason than at some point the leaders have to face the people. You can argue what it all means or even if it is good. You can argue that it is all a mirage (like the Marxists do). You can argue that money is a prerequiste for democracy, or that democracy is a prerequisite for riches, or that maybe the truth is in between.

I bet a undemocratic China will have a PPP GDP bigger than USA at 2009, and an exchange rate GDP bigger than USA at 2025-30 time frame.

But most of your arguments are nothing but the usual apologies for dictatorship. We heard them from Diaz, from Lee, from Mao and Stalin, and you hear it today still. I am not saying that we should go off on any more foreign adventures (Iraq has cured me of that permanently) but I will not like it. I do not like the idea that we continue to support dictators in places like Pakistan because the alternative is worse. I am a realist enough to accept it, but I do not have to like it.

But it does not change the fact that most rich countries are democracies, and democracies tend to be rich. Cause or effect? Who knows (I think it is a little of both). But that is the way of the world today.

That is a valid point. So far many countries are becoming democracy after they got rich under authoritrian control. In other case, like in Hong Kong, it is totally depends on its economic tie with China to keep its economic growth. Democracy has nothing to affect that.

[Flyin Ryan]

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2007/0608.html