Reagan and Gorbachev agree to dismantle all nukes

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Historian299, Jul 10, 2019 at 4:29 PM.

  1. Historian299 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    At the 1986 Reykjavík, both leaders proposed plans to ban all nuclear weapons between the two countries. Gorbachev proposed by the year 2000, Reagan said 10 years. Gorbachev also proposed elimanting all possible forms to launch nuclear weapons such as submarines and missile launchers.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/ronald-reagans-disarmament-dream/422244/

    The advisors for both leaders were very much aganist the idea. The plan failed because Reagan refused to give up the planned SDI system (Star Wars). Despite it not even being sciencetifically feasible, the Soviets were deathly afraid of it and Reagan would not give it up.

    In the end, they just agreed to the IRNF treaty that banned land based missiles

    What if the two leaders approved of a plan to elimnate all nuclear weapons?
    What it have worked?
    World other nations agree? (Britain, France, China, Israel)
    What kind of push back would have occured in the two nations?

     
    creighton likes this.
  2. Thomas Jefferson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    I doubt China would have agreed - or that the treaty would be ratified by the US Senate.
     
  3. GeographyDude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    We also need to add India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

    [​IMG]

    https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

    ===================

    Later edits:

    Pakistan may have gotten nukes as early as 1987, “according to Pakistani sources.”
    https://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/ <- Federation of American Scientists

    ———-

    North Korea announced in March 1993 that they were withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in response to IAEA demands to inspect two sites.
    IAEA = International Atomic Energy Agency
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-03-13-mn-10492-story,amp.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM
    creighton likes this.
  4. Pesterfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    At the least it might get 'why do we have them and what use are they' into mainstream political conversation.
     
  5. Captain Seafort Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    India, yes. Pakistan and NK, no, not in 1986.
     
    King_Arthur, GeographyDude and Kaze like this.
  6. TRH Tyrannosaurus Rex Handler

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Odds of Gorbachev getting couped if he'd agreed to something this potentially dangerous?
     
  7. Khanzeer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    All nukes gone
    WP can take western europe within a couple of weeks ?
    Can NATO survive w/o nukes against a full blown WP assault
     
  8. Historian299 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    The entire Politiburo was deathly afraid of SDI. I’m sure some hardliners would never agree but it’s was the consensus that arm control was better than the US having a super shield
    The whole reason Gorbachev wanted to talk was because the Soviet economy was in a tailspin. After 1980 a invasion of Europe was impossible. The Mujahideen bankrupted them, imagine the armies of NATO?
     
  9. Drizzt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Location:
    Mostly Lurking
    Can't speak for the others, but I'm certain the PRC would agree enthusiastically with the idea of both the USSR and the USA giving up their nuclear arsenal.
     
  10. Historian299 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    I meant give up their own nukes
     
    GeographyDude likes this.
  11. FDRFan1943 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2019
    I doubt Israel would give up there nukes because of the Samson Option.
     
  12. Shock Certified Robot Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Location:
    Earth
    Realistically no country would agree, because having nuclear bombs means you can push around those that don't.

    Someone is expanding aggressively against an ally? Say that any action against that ally will be responded to with nuclear force. I'd be willing to be they'd stop. Because even if they think you are bluffing, the risk is far too high.


    And I certainly wouldn't gamble that a nuclear armed state is bluffing, because there's only two outcomes:

    1) They are bluffing, in which case you get a win and deal a propaganda blow. Next time they definitely won't be bluffing though. Regardless of who is affronting them. Hope it's not a nation that follows your footstep and thinks it is a bluff.

    2) They aren't bluffing, in which case atleast one military target in your nation is radioactive ash. Presuming they are nice and didn't target anywhere that might harm civilians. They did warn you after all.
     
    GeographyDude likes this.
  13. HesitatedEye Minister for Organised Chaos

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Location:
    Sunny Scotland
    For the UK no chance Thatcher is still in and isn't likely to be gone anytime soon I can't see her giving them up.
     
    GeographyDude likes this.
  14. Cryhavoc101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2014
    Location:
    1123 6536 5321
    Need to draw down conventional forces as well

    Part of the defence of the internal German border was the threat that it was a trip wire that activated a storm of nukes.

    Take that away and while conventional NATO forces became very powerful in the mid/late 80s there was still a incredible number of Warsaw Pact Tanks and AFVs
     
    GeographyDude likes this.
  15. GeographyDude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Good catch. Thank you very much! :)

    Pakistan maybe as early as ‘87 by their own self reports, maybe later.
    https://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

    North Korea starting getting attention in ‘93, so possibly earlier, more likely around then or somewhat later.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-03-13-mn-10492-story,amp.html

    In fact, I added “Later edits” to my above post.
     
  16. interpoltomo please don't do coke in the bathroom

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Wasn't even within the realm of possibly happening. Why would a radical revolutionary power like the US give up it's nuclear arsenal?
     
  17. creighton Mono = One; Rail = Rail

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    By 1986 NATO has the strategic advantage in a conventional war.
     
    King_Arthur likes this.
  18. Captain Seafort Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2015
    Even if it didn't, a few hundred kilotons of Buccaneer-delivered WE177 is going to make a right old mess of any Soviet force.
     
    creighton likes this.
  19. Dathi THorfinnsson Daði Þorfinnsson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Syracuse, Haudenosaunee, Vinland
    Yeah. Nope. No way. No how.
    You'd have to get all the other nuclear powers (even undeclared ones), and even if you accomplished that miraculous feat, you'd never get it ratified in the US.
     
    King_Arthur and Oberleutnant like this.
  20. Shock Certified Robot Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Location:
    Earth
    And even if you managed that, you then have to strictly ensure nations like North Korea don't get any, because if they have them and the US and others don't, they can demand whatever they want because the risk of not appeasing then is nuclear destruction.

    Anyone who would call a bluff on a nuclear state threatening nuclear action is crazy, because they are risking millions of lives if they aren't bluffing.