Plausability check: alt world after a succesful 1986 Reykjavik summit.

Archibald

Banned
After Reykjavik, Reagan and Gorbachev outrageous and bold decision to wipe out nuclear weapons from the face of earth, has been an unexpected success.
With a little help from India, and with the end of Cold War in 1989, it snowballed at an astonishing speed. After South Africa, India triggered Pakistan and China nuclear disarmements, and that immediately strangled any possible nuclear proliferation to North Korea or Iran or elsewhere. France and Great Britain soon followed, leaving Israel the sole nuclear country in the planet.
Strong pressure fron the United States, together with emphasis on ABM weapons, finally win the day. Israel survival against the Arab countries switched from nuclear deterrence to ABM plus the usual strong conventional forces - air, sea, land, space based.

For Clinton it was unfortunate, however. With nuclear disarmement well on track, he found himself in the uncomfortable role of... supporting Reagan and Bush SDI, if only as an insurance against any future madman ! Clinton made ABM an international affair, though. The death of nuclear weapons released massive numbers of knowledgeable nuclear engineers, creating a very dangerous situation, notably in Russia.

The civilian nuclear industry did his best to absorb the leftover nuclear engineers and scientists, yet it needed help from the governments to do so. The answer was a civilian nuclear initiative, with research on Generation IV reactors - and fusion - accelerated. That, and a nuclear space initiative, since the Russians had an interesting piece of hardware called the Topaz.

Both NASA and the SDIO had nuclear -electric demonstrators on the drawing board. A tentative Russian - NASA - SDIO joint program was defined for the nculear space intitative. It consisted of an unmanned, nuclear-electric probe to orbit Jupiter's moon Europa, probing the icy surface with radar and hard landers.

Comments ? is that ASB ?
 
I think not so much an ASB in and of itself. Only depends how you develop it. You must have reaaaly nice debate in Congress on ratification, but Gorby surviving inevitable backlash from the hard liners is a tough proposition. It all depends how you write it. But definitely not ASB. Fusion I would leave out or at least that it takes few decades to develop. As for space exploration I like your proposition and it could work.
 
Wow! Wildly popular subject.

I thought about it a bit more. Would Cold War or USSR end in 1989 if Reykyavik summit succeeded? Might not having additional burden of matching USA tit for tat in nuclear armament actually enable Soviets to lumber on into late 90s?

OTOH Would Israel really dismantle their nuclear arsenal without comprehensive peace agreement and guarantees that no Arab state will ever try to destroy them?
 

Archibald

Banned
You must have reaaaly nice debate in Congress on ratification

Any help on this would be welcomed - same goes for Israel. The reason why I posted this little scenario here.

Would Cold War or USSR end in 1989 if Reykyavik summit succeeded?

I think Brezhnev pretty much doomed USSR by himself - with his thirst of power, inaction against corruption, and the proper sabotage of his own succession. Had Breznev died only five years earlier, USSR might have save his head... barely. But with him living until late 1982, it was too late. It is not only Breznhev that died in the 1979 -1986 era, it is a whole generation of dinosaurs - the Suslov, Ustinov, an others.

The risk, as you note, is a backlash against Gorbachev. That would be a hell of a risk. The 1991 coup could certainly happen earlier...
 
Any help on this would be welcomed - same goes for Israel. The reason why I posted this little scenario here.



I think Brezhnev pretty much doomed USSR by himself - with his thirst of power, inaction against corruption, and the proper sabotage of his own succession. Had Breznev died only five years earlier, USSR might have save his head... barely. But with him living until late 1982, it was too late. It is not only Breznhev that died in the 1979 -1986 era, it is a whole generation of dinosaurs - the Suslov, Ustinov, an others.

The risk, as you note, is a backlash against Gorbachev. That would be a hell of a risk. The 1991 coup could certainly happen earlier...

Have you ever heard that Suslov was actually the true power behind the throne in the U.S.S.R. for about two decades (through Andropov)?

I read that in the book Red Star Rogue.
 

Archibald

Banned
Well, anyway Suslov died before Breznhev, early 1982. Andropov managed to outsmart Suslov natural successor, Chernenko, and began reforming (slowly).
Gorbachev was Andropov protege.
Any opinion on my scenario, though ? :rolleyes:
 
Perhaps it might work, for the USSR part at leat if Gorbachev starts slow reforms, accepts US proposal and start reducing nuclear arsenal. Curtailing further development of nuclear missiles will surely create some savings. Those can be used to augment army and Airforce, as well as to make possible some improvement in industry.

If KGB could be kept friendly and army appeased, coup might not even happen or be a non starter, easily overcome. As for Israel perhaps you might use (as in steal blatantly) the scenario from 'Sum of all fears' the book to be clear and have a peace agreement.

And I am still amazed with the popularity of the subject.
 

Archibald

Banned
Perhaps it might work, for the USSR part at leat if Gorbachev starts slow reforms, accepts US proposal and start reducing nuclear arsenal. Curtailing further development of nuclear missiles will surely create some savings. Those can be used to augment army and Airforce, as well as to make possible some improvement in industry.
If KGB could be kept friendly and army appeased, coup might not even happen or be a non starter, easily overcome.

Interesting. Bigger conventional forces, hmmm ? for a non nuclear WWIII... Red Storm Rising, cough.


As for Israel perhaps you might use (as in steal blatantly) the scenario from 'Sum of all fears' the book to be clear and have a peace agreement.

I have to read it. No Ben Affleck in the book, fortunately.

And I am still amazed with the popularity of the subject.

So am I. I have to try it another way :rolleyes:
 
Interesting. Bigger conventional forces, hmmm ? for a non nuclear WWIII... Red Storm Rising, cough.

No the intention is not to prepare for war, but to appease the military, who otherwise might get rebellious ideas.

I have to read it. No Ben Affleck in the book, fortunately.

To save you the effort and time, in a nutshell Jerusalem is made international city under control of Swiss Guards (yeah, Papal) and the rest is resolved by some kind of demarcation, don't know on what basis, fully supported by neighboring Arabs. Yeah, and no Ben.

So am I. I have to try it another way :rolleyes:

Guess there needs to be a lot ka-booom. Entirely political timelines appear to have limited appeal. :)
 
I'm not sure how much I can add. I suppose there was the possibility of wiping the nuclear threat from the face of the globe (its easier to do grand things when the world is ruled by 2 superpowers, with everyone else in between), and it would certainly go down as Reagan's greatest achievement. I mean, 80% of Reagan today is a myth (a supermajority disagreed with his policies, though they liked him personally, and he oversaw the biggest tax increase in history among other things) but this would be real and something to laud him over. It'd be like if Calvin Coolidge won world peace. He may not have done much else, but he'll go down as a great president.
 
The Outcome could work if you prepare it properly

[
Wikipedia said:
At Reykjavík, ....Gorbachev sought to limit the talks solely to arms control. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the Soviets proposed the "double-zero" proposal for eliminating INF weapons from Europe (INF denoting "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces" as distinct from ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles).[1] The Russians also proposed to eliminate 50% of all strategic arms, including ICBMs , and agreed not to include British or French weapons in the count. All this was proposed in exchange for an American pledge not to implement strategic defences for the next ten years, in accordance with SALT I.

The Americans countered with a proposal to eliminate all ballistic missiles within ten years, but required the right to deploy strategic defences against remaining threats afterwards. Gorbachev then suggested eliminating all nuclear weapons within a decade. Gorbachev, however, citing a desire to strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty), added the condition that any SDI research be confined to laboratories for the ten year period in question. Reagan argued that his proposed SDI research was allowed by any reasonable interpretation of the ABM treaty, and that he could not forget the pledge he made to Americans to investigate whether SDI was viable. He also promised to share SDI technology, a promise which Gorbachev said he doubted would be fulfilled, as the Americans would not even share oil-drilling technology.

Some, including Reagan staffer Jack F. Matlock, Jr., attribute Reagan's refusal to compromise on SDI testing to a mistaken belief that the proposed restrictions would be detrimental to the program, whereas in reality, Matlock contends, they would have had little effect on research that was still in its very early stages.

The talks finally stalled, Reagan asking if Gorbachev would "turn down a historic opportunity because of a single word," referring to his insistence on laboratory testing. Gorbachev asserted that it was a matter of a principle, and the summit concluded.

The highlighted portions above are why this didn't go anywhere at the time, in part because Reagan had a very unrealistic view of what SDI was capable of and how quickly it could be developed. To make this work you would have to break the impasse.

Also: Coming just before an election, this kind of agreement if it had worked would have lead to a lot of polemics on the campaign trail - a number of conservative Republicans would have wanted to distance themselves from this idea on the grounds that the agreement "undercut our national defense," "relies too heavily on the Soviets," "Is a Munich-like deal" etc.,etc.

All of this would have to be ratified by the Senate in a Treaty to be legally binding on future Presidents, so you could expect a very long and intense debate about it, and not necessarily just along party lines. Look to the States where most of the defense money was going for the manufacture of ICBM components, that is where you would get your most entrenched resistance.

1986-87 was also the period of Iran-Contra, which seriously crippled the political power of the Reagan Administration.

I don't see Israel giving up its nuclear capability, not as long as there was a possibility for Iraq, Iran or Syria to develop nuclear technology; I have my doubts about China's willingness to go along as well, on nationalistic as well as ideological grounds. It would require a re-think of their national interests and political view of the world. Likud and the CCP would be tough customers to sell on this.

The idea is not necessarily ASB, but it needs a lot of foundation work to become plausible. In addition the above things you would need to look at are:

- political resistance to technology shifts - where there are winners and losers in allocation of the defense dollar, the losers put up stiff resistance. Its one of the reasons the US Defense budget is bloated with useless equipment and requirements.

- technology sharing is always a sensitive subject; a joint (US-Soviet-EU(?)-Japan(?)*) program along the lines you suggest will engender some nativist reaction in the US about giving "our secrets", "our advantage", "our security" etc. away to "adversaries/competitors" and not just from the vocal Pat Buchanan/Rush Limbaugh fringe but also from neo-Cons; in fact this controversy might stimulate an even stronger neo-Con movement against it in the 1990's

* I include Japan and the EU because as a practical matter, developing a long-term project of the kind you envision would be easier and more cost effective if it was spread across many partners - from a fiscal point of view that could make it more politically feasible in the US.

- Much as we like to think of Gorbachev as the bold reformer, he was in many ways an incrementalist who got lucky (if you perceive the outcome, the end of the USSR, as being good: some Russians don't). He was known to equivocate if hit with a particularly stiff challenge within the USSR to his program and his best moves came in reaction to emergencies such as Chernobyl, which he could use as a political club on his hard-line opponents. Gorbachev would face hard-line resistance which some more ambitious members of the Party (such as Yeltsin, perhaps Romanov or Grishin) particularly as the Soviet system begins to unravel. The principle objection would be for the USSR to give up its strategic advantage (this was still a sensitive subject in the 1980's due to the memories of being invaded by the Germans forty years earlier). Gorbachev would need to deal with the imbedded inferiority complex within the Soviet perception of themselves as a world power.

An aggressive ABM/SDI type program would definitely be needed politically, in both countries - and an aggressive program to track down offenders who might continue secret nuclear programs. (These need not be nations but independent actors like terrorist groups etc.) I can see a lot of "entrepreneurial" types taking advantage of a glut of under or unemployed nuclear engineers for all sorts of nefarious purposes.

From the point of view of the technology and the science it works - it's just the politics that gives you indigestion in planning this out.
 
I'm not sure how much I can add. I suppose there was the possibility of wiping the nuclear threat from the face of the globe (its easier to do grand things when the world is ruled by 2 superpowers, with everyone else in between), and it would certainly go down as Reagan's greatest achievement. I mean, 80% of Reagan today is a myth (a supermajority disagreed with his policies, though they liked him personally, and he oversaw the biggest tax increase in history among other things) but this would be real and something to laud him over. It'd be like if Calvin Coolidge won world peace. He may not have done much else, but he'll go down as a great president.

Reagan implied (there was always "wiggle room" in the promises) that he would deliver smaller government, a balanced budget (or smaller deficits), lower taxes and a better America (for the middle class, we presume).

He delivered a larger government, more taxes, a higher deficit and a beginning of runaway casino capitalism.

Yet, for some reason, he is considered a success because he did it with a smile, all the while making "middle America" feel good, or at least less negative about him than his opponents.

The great success - the end of the Cold War - could not have been achieved without reformers in the USSR willing to change the system, and these people did not become instant reformers just because of the influence of Reagan or Thatcher. By some research the trend to make changes in the USSR's economy can be traced all the way back to Khrushchev, although it was suspended by the 1964 coup.

If this had happened it would have been a great success - for both of them - but alas, neither seemed ready for it.
 

Archibald

Banned
First, thanks for the answer !

To make this work you would have to break the impasse
That's the crux. Why did Reagan proposed to share SDI technology with the Soviets in the first place ?
The SDI was a risky bargain to try making nuclear war obsolete - to break the MAD paradigm.
Of course SDI upseted the soviets, making a nuclear war more risky even before cancelling it.
To less upset the soviets, Reagan proposed to share the SDI with them. That was aparently silly, a fool idea.
Another question is why where the Soviet upset by SDI. After all, for every weapon America fielded, they always build an equivalent.

The usual answer to that question is "well, the soviet could never build an SDI, because that was too expensive."

That's actually wrong, and that's where the Reykjavik impasse might be broken.
The soviet actually had an SDI program going at medium pace. Their Zenith Star laser was Polyus.
Their kinetic "Brilliant Pebbles" were modified Progress ships, a program called Kaskad.

What happened was that Polyus - an empty mockup of the laser battlestation - flew on May 15, 1987 from Baikonur, and before that date, Gorbachev ignored its very existence - including in Reykjavik.
Gorbachev reportedly was furious, and then is reported to have sighed "if only I had knew about that thing before Reykjavik !"

In my alternate space program, a different Polyus flies a good year earlier, triggering Gorbachev attention on the soviet SDI months before Reykjavik.

That how the impasse gets broken: not by Reagan sharing SDI with the Soviets, rather a stunned gorbachev revealing Reagan "hum; well; looks my country also had an SDI program on the running..."
 
Last edited:
Top