WI Reagan drops his demand to keep Star Wars at Reykyavik

Shaby

Do you think it plausible that Ronnie would ever drop his Star Wars project? What could drive him to do it?

IIRC Gorbachev offered complete nuclear disarmament but negotiations foundered over the issue of missile defense. I understand that there were lot of bridges to cross after Reykyavik, but if Reagan agreed to drop Star Wars, would real nuclear disarmament occur and what would happen?
 
Electric Monk

Electric Monk

Much to the horror of most of Reagan's staff (and most conservatives, at the time) he not only agreed with Gorbachev on nuclear disarmament but he actually offered to share Star Wars, as a joint American-Russian missile shield program.

There are multiple potential PODs.

The easiest, in one sense, is that the KGB or GRU has a mole in the SDI program and they learn (and tell Gorbachev, which is a 50/50 kinda thing) that Star Wars is a joke. Therefore Gorbachev doesn't really care if Reagan actually shares SDI technology with the USSR and accepts the deal.

Both men, for different reasons, truly did want to step out of the nuclear missile race. I think it's probably too late for the USSR to survive, but maybe the prestige lets Gorbachev bring Russia to a Chinese-style reform without the American economic advisors that screwed Russia in the '90s. That'd be a great outcome for hundreds of millions of Russians.

Perhaps, too, the USA under Reagan might be able to cut defence strongly enough (and under a Republican) that the idea of the inviolate defence budget is trashed, which would do good things to the US balance sheet.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
IIRC, Reagan listened to the advice of Richard Perle, who insisted that SDI be non-negotiable. So, you might either have Reagan decide that Perle was wrong or have Perle adopt a different point of view.

Either way, if Reagan and Gorbachev had come to an agreement at Reykyavik that lead to a treaty providing for the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons altogether, it might have been one of the epoch-making moments in human history.

Reagan once said that the main reason he wanted to be President was to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
 

Shaby

Would, for example, Bennie Schriever be listened to if he told Reagan that ICBMs could always defeat missile defense with much cheaper modifications? Would he be likely to advice something like this?
 

David Floyd

Then again, why would we want him to? I mean, what happens if Reagan lets up on the pressure against the Soviet Union? Odds are, they survive longer. Do we really think that's a good thing?
 

wolf_brother

Banned
Having a mole inside the SDI program seems like the best option. iirc the Soviets were quite good at getting their intelligence people into sensitive places in the West. Its a little hand-wavy, but still quite believable.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
David Floyd said:
Then again, why would we want him to? I mean, what happens if Reagan lets up on the pressure against the Soviet Union? Odds are, they survive longer. Do we really think that's a good thing?
Click to expand...
It tends to be a good idea to read most of the thread you're going to post in.
 

Archibald

Banned
I attempted to bring this old thread back to life - without success.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=202923

Oh, well, doesn't matter. I like this thread, too - because I'm currently deep into the Reykjavik summit. I have massed tons of links and documents about this summit if anybody interested.

a mole inside the SDI program seems like the best option.
Click to expand...
There's another way around - Polyus ! First, the dates. Polyus launched on May 15, 1987 - six months after Reykjavik. Now Polyus amounted to a kind of Soviet Stars Wars.
So the question is: how could Gorbachev heavily critize Reagan again and again over SDI, when he had Polyus in the jigs ?
The answer might sound incredible, but (can you believe that) Gorbachev did not knew Polyus true nature before his trip to baikonur... the day of the launch !!!
Now, according to a source, when he saw Polyus that day, gorbachev was evidently furious, then he just said "it's a pity I didn't knew about it before Reykjavik"

I would say that, had Gorbachev known better about Polyus BEFORE reykjavik, well, the outcome might have been totally different.

Oh, and I'm very interested about political consequences of a "nuclear free world" Reykjavik agreement.
Do you think it might have prevented Bush becoming presdient in 1988 ?
And what about the infamous August 1991 coup ?

Reagan listened to the advice of Richard Perle
Click to expand...
And Perle listened his boss, Caspar Weinberger - Cap the Knife opposed any concession to the soviets. What is interesting is that both hawks Perle and Weinberger moved out of the Reagan administration in 1987, clearing the way for things like the INF treaty...
 
Last edited:

Shaby

I'll wager you are reading "The Dead Hand" by Hoffman? That book inspired me to start this thread.
 

Archibald

Banned
Shaby said:
I'll wager you are reading "The Dead Hand" by Hoffman? That book inspired me to start this thread.
Click to expand...

Eeerh.. no. This one totally escaped me. Probably because I couldn't read it on Google books :D

Do you think Gorbachev could be deposed by a harliner coup circa 1987 or 1988 ?
Or another assassination atempt on Reagan perhaps ?

The soviet actually had laser and kinetic space weapons in development.
It amounted to
- Laser > Zenith Star > Polyus
- Kinetic > Brilliant Pebbles > Kaskad
(the latter much less known than Polyus)
 

Shaby

Archibald said:
Eeerh.. no. This one totally escaped me. Probably because I couldn't read it on Google books :D
Click to expand...

Excellent book. I stumbled upon it by accident. I would be most interested in your links. PM me, pls.

Archibald said:
Do you think Gorbachev could be deposed by a harliner coup circa 1987 or 1988 ?
Or another assassination atempt on Reagan perhaps ?
Click to expand...

I think at least an attempt would be made. I think Akhromeyev would act sooner than he did actually. I cannot estimate what Sokolov would do, but if he is dismissed and Yazov takes over, I guess 1988 coup seems likely. Would it fare any better? Perhaps, but not likely. It has more chances than in 1991, but still less than 50%.

Assassination on Reagan I find unlikely. More likely is protracted struggle in Congress. How it would play out I do not know. Unfortunately I do not posses enough knowledge on politics in USA in that period.
 

Archibald

Banned
According to George Shulz Akhromeyev actually was present in Reykjavik, and favorably impressed the american delegates.

Electric Monk: about the idea of sharing the SDI technology. As mentioned above, and mostly unknown to Gorbachev himself before May 1987 and Polyus, the soviets actually had their own Star Wars systems, or at least elements of it - Kaskad and Skif/ Polyus.

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Soviet-Star-Wars.html

In 1986 the big difficulties with lasers prompted a switch from Zenith star (laser) toward Brilliant Pebbles (kinetic). On the soviet side, Polyus was to be a laser battlestation, but it was only a mockup. The soviets faced the same problems with lasers, notably a serious overweight - at least 60 tons.
By constrast Kaskad, like the Brilliant Pebbles, looked more feasible, technologically wise... excepted 4000 were needed.
Perhaps technology could be shared over kinetic systems; a US-USSR joint shield made of Kaskad and Brilliant Pebbles could be deployed. Yet 4000 launches would boost the space launch industry tremendously - good for RLV like the Delta Clipper. How about that ?
 

Shaby

It is really pity that ICBMs are pretty ultimate weapon. Defence against them is really impossible without SERIOUS investment and even then the enemy can just saturate your defense with much cheaper missiles, making all investment moot. The only way is either to abandon missiles altogether or build many of them.

All those laser systems, kinetic weapons, and like are just pipe dreams. The massive attack by missiles would simply overwhelm any system feasible even with current technology, let alone the technology of the 80s. Time to react is too short, targets are numerous and it is impossible to discriminate real and false targets all of which are traveling 20k+.

All systems tested by both Soviets and Americans were good for satellite killing, but were as good as throwing rocks on warheads. Maybe for a few single warhead missiles fired by say North Korea or something, but I think AEGIS stands pretty decent chance of taking these out in terminal phase.
 

Winston Smith

Banned
Shaby said:
It is really pity that ICBMs are pretty ultimate weapon. Defence against them is really impossible without SERIOUS investment and even then the enemy can just saturate your defense with much cheaper missiles, making all investment moot. The only way is either to abandon missiles altogether or build many of them.

All those laser systems, kinetic weapons, and like are just pipe dreams. The massive attack by missiles would simply overwhelm any system feasible even with current technology, let alone the technology of the 80s. Time to react is too short, targets are numerous and it is impossible to discriminate real and false targets all of which are traveling 20k+.

All systems tested by both Soviets and Americans were good for satellite killing, but were as good as throwing rocks on warheads. Maybe for a few single warhead missiles fired by say North Korea or something, but I think AEGIS stands pretty decent chance of taking these out in terminal phase.
Click to expand...

That's simply not true. If you can do the maths fast enough, you can knock out an inbound warhead bus before it releases its payload. This is even easier with nuclear ABMs.
 

Shaby

Winston Smith said:
That's simply not true. If you can do the maths fast enough, you can knock out an inbound warhead bus before it releases its payload. This is even easier with nuclear ABMs.
Click to expand...

Don't you need to place interceptors near the launch site? When exactly are the warhead released? I mean most of what I read says that MIRVed missiles are hard to impossible to intercept beyond first stage release. Someone did an analysis on the Slate War stories (I think it was that Kaplan guy, or he maybe took somebody else's report). What is the rate of success of interceptors?
 

Astrodragon

Winston Smith said:
That's simply not true. If you can do the maths fast enough, you can knock out an inbound warhead bus before it releases its payload. This is even easier with nuclear ABMs.
Click to expand...

Its not quite that simple :)
The bus will deploy some or all of its warheads, decoys and penaids once its clear of the atmosphere (what and how it will deploy will vary quite a bit)

If your close enough to shoot it down before it does this, your probably close enough to shoot the launcher while its boosting, which is a MUCH more fragile and identifiable target....
 

Astrodragon

Shaby said:
Don't you need to place interceptors near the launch site? When exactly are the warhead released? I mean most of what I read says that MIRVed missiles are hard to impossible to intercept beyond first stage release. Someone did an analysis on the Slate War stories (I think it was that Kaplan guy, or he maybe took somebody else's report). What is the rate of success of interceptors?
Click to expand...

MIRV's are no harder to knock out in the reentry phase than anything else, there just tend to be more warheads on differing trajectories, which means you need more interceptors. You cant manouver a warhead once it hits atmosphere.
 

wolf_brother

Banned
Winston Smith said:
That's simply not true. If you can do the maths fast enough, you can knock out an inbound warhead bus before it releases its payload. This is even easier with nuclear ABMs.
Click to expand...

You're proposing shooting a bullet with a bullet, which is possible yes under certain theoretical and laboratory conditions, but in real-world practice is flat ASB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top