Okay then, why don't we go ahead and compare Reagan and Bush 41 on arms policy? Let's see...first of all, Bush's START I Treaty went further than anything Reagan ever achieved in terms of arms reductions. Secondly, Reagan proposed INF in 1981 but the Soviets said no because thanks to the Gipper's ferocious anti-USSR rhetoric they did not trust him. Bush was a serious diplomat who is likely to be very influenced by Kissinger, the architect of detente, so it is very plausible to think that 41 would have succeeded where Reagan failed.
Thirdly, in his Second Inagural Address Reagan gave lip service to the Peace Movement by endorsing the "radical" policy of nuclear abolition, but he rejected Gorby's offer to do just that at Rekjavik because he would have to give up Star Wars. Fourthly, not only did Reagan oversee a massive military build up that included an expansion of America's already vast nuclear arsenal, but this is the very reason that his admirers argue he was a great President. (The argument goes that Reagan broke the USSR by outspending them, which isn't historically accurate and doesn't even make logical sense).
As I'm sure you would be able to see from as much as a Wikipedia article on the subject, negotiating START was a Reagan-era process. It and INF grew out of an about-turn on Reagan's part from about 1983 onwards, when he re-started the negotiation process, and then things sped pretty quickly once Gorbachev was in power and the lack of clear Soviet leadership in the 1980s period ceased. Reagan spent about 3/4ths of his presidency pushing détente rather than 'the Evil Empire', popular perceptions aside. Bush signed START, he didn't make it. Initially as soon as he got into office, Bush put a freeze on pushing that process further along.
That's Bush putting a freeze for the whole of the first year of his term in
1989, with the Soviet empire fraying, and the détente process already well underway, and with four years of highest-level relationship-building with Gorbachev. Now try to imagine that inhibited, cautious Bush of 1989 in 1981, with no Gorbachev, no steady pre-existing process, and with Gerry Ford's huge troubles from the right over SALT, and Carter's troubles over the Canal Treaty, only a few years away; in a post-Afghanistan intervention environment, and with a buildup already begun under the apparently weak Carter. And bearing in mind the blowback from the right that
Reagan got when he signed INF, which earned him the customary comparisons to Chamberlain. That's for someone the right trusted.
With all that in mind, the idea that Bush, in an even fraught environment than that of his 1989 stay, plunges into immediate, big-scale détente is absolutely ludicrous.
But if you want to continue with a wikibox understanding of Bush as an invincible muscular moderate who would end the Cold War on a silver penny, then who are we to stop you?
(And if you're not aware of the fact that no-other US president than one as irregular, radical and of such peculiarly, idiosyncratically anti-nuke views as Reagan would even
think about giving away the house like Reagan did at Rekjavik...)