The arms race, the fundamental flaws in the Soviet system. From Stalin on there were flaws in the system, under Khrushchev those flaws were amplified by an enourmous increase in military spending. And Frankly the problem for most of the Soviet premiers after Khrushchev was how to reform the economy, the way chosen by Gorbachev ended Soviet hegemony. Gorbachev destroyed the Soviet Union, it's economy was long broken.

I still don't figure how you got your 90% thing. Reagan did accelerate the fall of the USSR, he didn't just happen be sitting in the White House when the Soviet Republics declared independence. I agree that Gorbachev played a great role (greater than Reagan) but 90%?

Oh boy... I suggest you read some theories on global politics. Unipolar and multipolar systems are relatively stable, bipolar are explosive. Having the US as the world's sole superpower is infinitely more stable than having a live and kicking USSR. A simple glance through the last 60 years will show that.
You are very selective in your choosing of Soviet satelittes (where is Poland, DDR, Czech R., Slovakia, or any of the Baltic nations?), but either way ask the people of those countries whether they preferred being under the USSR or independence. My guess is that most will prefer the current situation.
The threat of nuclear war will always exist as long as there are nukes. But you cannot seriously claim the threat of nuclear war is greater now than it was during the Cold War. You can blame Putin and the Former Soviet Leaders, now dictators, for the state of the Soviet nuclear weapons. The current nuclear threat comes from "rogue nations" with a single digit nuclear arsenal not a single military behemoth with several thousand nukes aimed at your ass.

Give me 1 thing slashing welfare did to help and give me evidence. I'll give in that Reagen helped the Economy, because you'll just keep shouting numbers at me till i agree but you yourself admitted Clinton did better for the Economy and he dragged the U.S. out of the debt that Bush Sr. and Reagen had run up.

Unipolar is like a dictatorship. Always gonna be stable but they have the power to do what they want. They randomly destroy places and people at will with uproar only from people / countries lacking the power to stop them. Bipolar is a 2 party democracy, explosive when the two the sides disagree but does not give one the power to do as they please. Multipolar is the best as it is stable and gives no-one ultimate power. The threat is as great as ever because of rogue nations / terrorists. I'm surprised Al Querida hasn't got the hands on a warhead yet. Look at the facts the same amount of nuclear bomb have been fired during the cold war as post cold war. My guess , by the way, is the majority of (not all) former soviet people preferred the old regime but we'll never no unless we both go ask them all.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

In terms of stability it goes like this according to the book. (for most to least):
Unipolar > Multipolar > Bipolar

A unipolar world eliminates the possibility of huge drawn out conflicts, as only one nation is capable of it. It isn't perfect, as the one nation can bully around, but in terms of global stability it is the most stable political arrangement there is. There is agreement and prosperity. (Closest examples are Roman Empire, or perhaps the modern day world)

A multipolar world still has tensions, but as there always exists a net of alliances no part of the powers will become dominant, keeping the peace. But those tensions always exist, and the possibility of war due to the powers' rivalries always exists. (19th century Europe for perfect example)

A bipolar world is the least stable as any one superpowers loss is the others gain. (Example: Sparta vs. Athens, or the Cold War)

There is a debate as to whether a bipolar system is more stable than a multipolar one, but I find it unconvincing. The book "Games Nations Play" explains these systems well.

Also, I am very sure that all formerly independent nations that were absorbed under the Soviet empire are very glad to see the fall of the USSR. I don't have any polls, but I am dead sure of this. Besides, it is an impossible situation, the USSR cannot be restored without some serious financial repairs within Russia.

Edit: Oops, no "The" in the book name.

Unipolar most stable? And you the Roman Empire as a example? There was never ANY peace in Roman times, just constant invasion of places until they over expanded. Century's of drawn out conflict. How can you say the Roman Empire caused stability?
Take a look at Bipolar there was relative (a few planes shot down) peace on either side, and alot of fear. It could off all exploded and eventually would have, but it didn't.
Multi-polar is not stable, but stabler. Unless alliances are forged it will be rock solid but as you say alliances will nearly always be formed.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

You leave me no choice, I must quote:
And a definition of stablility:
And as you adamantly defend a bipolar system:
It continues on, but I believe that should suffice.

As for the rest of your comments. No peace during Roman times? Never heard of the paxa romana in that case? Major wars were rare during times of clear Roman hegemony, and in general it was a relatively peaceful time at it's peak. In general terms of stability, no major wars check, general peace, check, desire to retain system check, I'd say we have stability.

We were all lucky that the Cold War did not turn hot, but it was very, very close several times. Our existence just might be because someone did not press that big red shiny button. It is a folly to call the Cold War a stable system, as all signs point to the explosive and unstable nature of the system. Just because once it didn't explode doesn't mean it always won't, Sparta and Athens. Several bloody wars, and the eventual capture of Athens, explain how that bipolar system was stable.

Multipolar is relatively stable, but as I said there are always underlying tensions and conflicts which can end up exploding into a bipolar-esque conflict. Unless alliances are forged it will remain rock solid? I recommend a brief glimpse into 19th century Europe and look at the constantly shifting alliances. The duration of an alliance in a multipolar system is very brief.

Shockingly, quoting a book didn't convince me.

If the Roman Empire was so stable how did it collapse? How come in was (nearly) constantly at war?

If conflict is unavoidable in Bi-polarity then was come conflict was AVOIDED in the cold war. Yes things could have blown up, but they didn't they did they? Athens and Sparta wern't superpowers at the time. It would be like Israel invading Egypt.

If multi-polar superpowers start aliening with each other then it turns into a Bi-polar system surely?

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

The Roman Empire was very stable, at it's peak. Generally the Paxa Romana period is considered to be the height of the Roman Empire, and at that time there were no major wars, only minor border action. Rome was always at "war" but rarely people would even hear of these "wars". Local garrisons or a legion, or two could handle the "war", without further involvement. The Punic Wars were major, the Persian wars were major, a tribe of restless Alemannis isn't major.
No empire lasts forever, the cyclic theory of history supports this.

The concepts of polarity don't have to be on a global scale. In Greek affairs, Sparta and Athens were superpowers, and Greek politics were conducted in such a manner. Bi-polarity doesn't require war, but in a bi-polar system it is much, much more likely than any other system. As I quoted earlier, any loss is the the other's gain, and any gain is the other's loss. This is seen as a threat to security, a nation's priority, making hostile reaction much more likely. You cannot claim that the Cold War was a stable time, the threat of war was everpresent, and nothing is stable when the threat of war is present.

And yes, if in a multi-polar system powers start alienating each other and joining "camps" then it can turn into a bi-polar system. (late 19th century to pre-WWI) This on the other hand increases the likelyhood of conflict. The prior system of multiple powers holding a state in place has dissapeared. One acts, the other counters.

But instead of me repeating my points, I'd like to hear why you think that bi-polarity is such a stable system, compared to other ones. What ensures stability in a bi-polar struggle, rather than a multipolar alliance system, or unipolar dominance? Maybe you are right, but I'd like to hear an argument as to why.

No empire lasts forever. Exactly. For a Empire to collapse there has to a major war. And there were lots of major wars in Roman times. You give 2 yourself, how can you call it stable? When there is one superpower they will always invade smaller countries. This may not be a major war for the superpower but it certainly is for the smaller country.
Bi-Polarity isn't as stable as Multiploar as i've said. The reason world peace has never occurred is because there has never been a Multipolar world. Everyone always seems to join together. However, bi-polarity stops one superpower from invading smaller places because of the threat of the other superpower. This makes it more stable, surely?
I might be right? Might be? Only joking I'm probably wrong, i'll probably realize in a few weeks but until then this thread's alive.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

I've studied History for several years in school, and read plenty on my own, I'm even thinking of majoring on History, I'm getting a vibe you haven't.
The two wars I mentioned happened at either the start or end of the Roman empire. The Punic Wars (I, II and III), were the wars that defined Rome against it's major rival Carthage. (There is another clear bi-polar system, btw) After three long hard wars, Rome won, sacked, razed and salted Carthage, Rome was left the dominant power in the Mediterranean.
The Persian Wars began to happen once Rome reached a border with the Persian empire and conflicts of interest began to occur. There was never a single definying war, there were just series of local ones. For Rome the conflict never threatened the existence of Rome, unlike for Parthian Persia. Rome initated these wars for her (I think Rome is feminine) gain.
During the time of clear cut Roman rule, the paxa romana there were no such wars. Unipolar Rome ensured that the empire was stable as no one could resist Rome; obey or be destroyed. It worked, prosperity ensued, but when decline began, it no longer was unipolar. Rome could not force it's will on others anymore, by definition no longer unipolar. (Rome is not the best example, but it probably is the closest. Take America as a power in the Americas, that is unipolar)

An empire doesn't have to collapse due to a major war, Rome fell militarily to a meager barbarian invasion, economically due to corruption. The USSR fought no major war, no war ended the British empire. (though it did speed up the process) Wars tend to quicken the collapse of empires, but I'd reckon very few empires ended solely due to military action.

That is a moot point in this argument. How does that influence the major power which holds a clear position in the region?

The "world" as we see it is a new thing, never before have we been able to communicate like this before. Globalization is unprecedented. World peace would have been impossible for any empire to achieve before today. Unless of course all men understand each other and agree to live and prosper together, but as a cynic I don't believe that.
I think European history in general encapsulates the multipolar system quite well. Also, this theory doesn't have to apply to the whole world. It can apply to any predefined region. If I say 19th century Europe was a multipolar system, I'm correct. Saying that the entire world was bi-polar during the Cold War is correct.

What you don't mention is that these smaller states most likely belong to one side on the bi-polar division. Or they are trying to mainting a delicate balancing act. If Nation X threatens the small country, Nation Y will say that they will "defend" small country by declaring war and fighting Nation X.
Depending on the skill of the diplomats, war will or won't be avoided. Bi-polarity will in general ensure a stalemate, in which the threat of conflict always exists. But as any conflict, anywhere involving either of the two powers, may start the big war, it is not very stable.
I agree that there does exist an element of stability in a bi-polar system, but that is not my argument. What I am saying is that a unipolar system is most stable, with multi-polar and bi-polar as second and third. (though those two are rather close to eachother)

What I don't understand, is why you think a bi-polar system with it's stalemate is more stable than a unipolar system, in which nothing can effectively prevent the power from acting in its interest.
And because, I know you will ask it, yes, it does suck to be a small power in a unipolar world, it sucks too being a small power in a bi-polar or multi-polar world. Being a small power sucks, period.

We have so sidetracked from Reagan. Please don't lock.

Sorry about taking my time to reply i havn't been able to get on a computer for a while.

Uni-Polar systems have the ability to be VERY stable, but they can ALSO be very un-stable. In my book that makes that makes them un-stable. I'll expand on this : If the ruler of the one and only superpower decides that want to detach Portugal from Spain no-one can stop them so they do it. If they want to make a sea monster that can eat Africa no-one could stop them. If that ONE person decided they wanted to destroy the world they could. I depends on the mentality of that Ruler whether it's stable or not. This for me is therefore instable.

The cold war is a prime example of a Bi-Polar system, no matter which way you look at it the cold war is stable by your definition. It had no MAJOR war. I think Bi-Polar systems are instable because they have the ability to erupt at any time but just like a Uni-Polar system they can stable.

A multi-polar system will never occur because of alliances so in all honesty i don't see there ever being stability in the world.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.