WI: 1986 Reykjavik Nuclear Disarmament Talks Succeed

Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to total nuclear disarmament at the summit, but SDI was the only holdup. What happens if Reagan folds on SDI, or if the 2 leaders write everything down before the issue comes up.

What will the American, Soviet and international reaction be if Reagan+Gorbachev come out with an agreement for total nuclear disarmament?
 
If Reagan ceded SDI Gorbachev might then oppose nuclear disarmament because US/NATO conventional superiority would leave the USSR if not naked, at least scantily clad. Seeing as Gorbachev was besieged by both hard-liners and liberals/reformers whereas Reagan was a fairly popular 2nd-term POTUS, I'm unsure Gorbachev really had the authority to implement disarmament.
 
If Reagan ceded SDI Gorbachev might then oppose nuclear disarmament because US/NATO conventional superiority would leave the USSR if not naked, at least scantily clad. Seeing as Gorbachev was besieged by both hard-liners and liberals/reformers whereas Reagan was a fairly popular 2nd-term POTUS, I'm unsure Gorbachev really had the authority to implement disarmament.

I disagree. Gorbachev knew this but initiated the nuclear disarmament talks anyways. Chances are he runs into large opposition if he comes away from Reykjavik with an agreement, but in 1986 he is at the height of his power and can probably outmaneuver the hard-liners.

Honestly, I think Reagan will run into more trouble from American hard-liners if an agreement is made.
 
Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to total nuclear disarmament at the summit, but SDI was the only holdup. What happens if Reagan folds on SDI, or if the 2 leaders write everything down before the issue comes up.

I don't know anything to speak of about the Reykjavik summit, but I have a really hard time believing either the US or USSR would ever agree to total bilateral nuclear disarmament. And the critical word in that sentence is bilateral. There are other nuclear-armed states in the world, most notably China, sitting right on Russia's eastern border.

Do either the US or the USSR want to make themselves that vulnerable to nuclear blackmail? Even if there are no immediate threats from third parties, there are a lot of countries under the US nuclear umbrella that are going to start their own bomb programs if the US disarms.
 
I don't know anything to speak of about the Reykjavik summit, but I have a really hard time believing either the US or USSR would ever agree to total bilateral nuclear disarmament. And the critical word in that sentence is bilateral. There are other nuclear-armed states in the world, most notably China, sitting right on Russia's eastern border.

Do either the US or the USSR want to make themselves that vulnerable to nuclear blackmail? Even if there are no immediate threats from third parties, there are a lot of countries under the US nuclear umbrella that are going to start their own bomb programs if the US disarms.

Yes, I would imagine it wouldn't get any farther than some sort of START/SORT/etc.-type agreement and a strengthening of the ABM treaty to account for SDI. A truly comprehensive disarmament is not possible or desirable at the time for either state.
 
The debate on this would be extraordinary if Reagan/Gorbachev announced an agreement. Reagan's views on nuclear weapons were in opposition to the entire Republican Party in the US - he dreamed of total nuclear disarmament. Gorbachev wanted it for practical reasons - to save money.

The debate on this treaty in the US Senate would be extraordinary.

At the very least, this might prevent Republicans 25 years later from deifying Reagan and his presidency.
 
Yes, I would imagine it wouldn't get any farther than some sort of START/SORT/etc.-type agreement and a strengthening of the ABM treaty to account for SDI. A truly comprehensive disarmament is not possible or desirable at the time for either state.

On the other hand, while total disarmament strikes me as implausible, I wonder if we might be able to have some kind of Grand Bargain, a super-START that would deMIRV the ICBMs and get US/USSR warhead counts to the low thousands. I don't know enough about either US or Soviet politics of the time to know if it would be possible, but it would make a lot of sense from the standpoint of nuclear strategy. It would also, however, probably require a pretty drastic curtailing of SDI, which might make it unpalatable to Reagan.
 
I'm not so sure that a more drastic reduction by both sides wasn't possible. Like others, I think some give on SDI would have been needed. Complete disarmament on the other hand, I feel would be too much for the cold warriors on either side to go along with.
 
For Total disarmament, you'd need to get the UK, France, the PRC, India, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel to the table...
 
Seeing as an agreement on bilateral nuclear disarmament at Reykjavik was quasi-ASB, I think the plausible best case scenario might have been a pact banning production of highly-enriched fissionable material. In the event that proved a stretch, perhaps Gorbachev/Reagan could have agreed to a 15 year 'holiday' on same?
 

Archibald

Banned
The debate on this would be extraordinary if Reagan/Gorbachev announced an agreement. Reagan's views on nuclear weapons were in opposition to the entire Republican Party in the US - he dreamed of total nuclear disarmament. Gorbachev wanted it for practical reasons - to save money.

The debate on this treaty in the US Senate would be extraordinary.

At the very least, this might prevent Republicans 25 years later from deifying Reagan and his presidency.

writting a big alternate space timeline I've randomly discovered the Reykjavik summit two weeks ago... and my jaw fell to the ground, Wile E. Coyote style. :D
What happened was that the alt soviet space program I imagined might change Gorbachev opinion of SDI enough to result in a Reykjavik agreement...
I still can't believe Reagan and Gorbachev discussed kind of "global zero" in Reykjavik. I find that idea extremely exciting - although I can imagine the formidable difficulties lying ahead of an eventual agreement.
I've spent the last days frantically scanning the web, ammassing documents and links.
Know nothing - could you develop a bit about how an eventual agreement ?
 
As was mentioned, I could see at best an 'nuclear holiday' being agreed to, with older weapons decommissioned without being replaced over time, yield limits, reduction of total numbers etc. After-all, armament holidays aren't without precedent (such as the Washington Naval Treaty).
 
Top