Andreev Bay nuclear accident of 1982

Construction issues could have been recognize and addressed in any of the intervening ~20 years.

And yes, chasing parity with the US did lead to unsustainable Soviet military GDP allocations, ultimately empowering Gorbachev with an economically- rather than ideologically-derived mandate and thus leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

It's a fair argument as to whether or not this was intentionally engineered, but it's a fact that the Soviets spent roughly twice as much of their GDP on their military, and that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed for economic reasons.

Soviet military spending by year: https://nintil.com/2016/05/31/the-soviet-union-military-spen...

Reallocation example under Gorbachev: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-budg...

He posted a fact and made no arguments. It's impossible for that to be a fallacy.

> If an Article was titled "Obama for President [2017]" because the article was written in 2017, it would be misleading because the article is about his presidency in 2008.

The inverse is true. It would be misleading to put '[2008]' in the title of such an article because the perspective and facts in the article would be totally different having been written in 2008 than in 2017. This is a great case for putting the publication date in the title.

> If an article published this year about the holocaust was titled "6M Jews dead [2017]," referencing the holocaust of world war 2, it would also be misleading because is is also not about 2017.

That would be a terrible title for an article written in 2017... I'd argue that's the fault of the author rather than the stylistic standard of including the publication date in square brackets.

The way dang edited the title (adding 'of 1982') is ideal for this purpose but unnecessary; the style of the original title made it clear that it's not a news article.

P.S. Outside the academic world we would take it easy with the thesaurus and just call it a fact, not a truism. ;)