WI Reagan drops his demand to keep Star Wars at Reykyavik

Aegis isn't effective against ICBMs.
Patriot isn't effective against ICBMs.

Again, contact me when you can shoot down a missile packing a nuclear payload in low orbit.
 

Archibald

Banned
There are two levels of missile defense. Short range ballistic missiles (less than 1000 km range) can be shot down by souped-up air defence systems such as Patriot, S-300, Aster, THAAD, Arrow...
Longer ranged missiles are coming much faster and higher - a totally different issue. There you might need space based weapons.
Israel or Japan ABM shields are build to counter short/ medium range missiles coming from North Korea and Iran. They would be totally uneffective against, say, a Minuteman III or a SS-20.
 
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.

Could you blame them, I couldn't. Sure get rid of nukes but don't give them SDI

Electric Monk said:
There are multiple potential PODs.

The best POD is Reagan accepting Gorbachev's proposal to confine SDI to the laboratory for 10 years.

Electric Monk said:
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.

SDI wasn't a joke it actually came up with Brilliant Pebbles and Zenith Star

Electric Monk said:
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.

That's exactly what the American economic advisers wanted but that would have require selling assets to non-Russians which Yeltsin wasn't going to do.

Electric Monk said:
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.

Yes.
 
Well, yeah that's an option. If you want to have nuclear explosions at high altitude which guarantees EMPs and kinda beats the whole purpose.

Anyway, the purpose of the thread was not to discuss merits and feasability of each single ABM system, but to discuss whether the agreement in Reykyavik was possible or not. Obviously huge problems should be expected both from US Congress on one side and hard liners on the other side. Rationally speaking none of the systems available at the time offered protection good enough to stop destruction in case of full out war.

SDI was Reagan's child and I am aware that he would be the first obstacle to the treaty. Provided he drops his request there is no reason the treaty is not signed by both heads of state then and there. What follows?
 
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.

You are aware of MARVs, right? Or, for that matter, the Space Shuttle? Dyna-Soar? You know, reentry vehicles (which could transport warheads) that were perfectly capable of maneuvering once they hit atmosphere? There's no reason you couldn't do the same with an ICBM (or SLBM) lofted RV carrying a nuclear warhead. Which, BTW, was actually viewed as the "next step" past simple MIRVing OTL.
 
You are aware of MARVs, right? Or, for that matter, the Space Shuttle? Dyna-Soar? You know, reentry vehicles (which could transport warheads) that were perfectly capable of maneuvering once they hit atmosphere? There's no reason you couldn't do the same with an ICBM (or SLBM) lofted RV carrying a nuclear warhead. Which, BTW, was actually viewed as the "next step" past simple MIRVing OTL.

MARVS arent any more difficult to hit, they can just cover a wider footprint. A problem if you are depending on point defence, of course.

The trajectory of a warhead is TOTALLY different from that of a manouvering rentry vehicle. As in totally. Completely different set of parameters.

I'm also curious as to just what your agile warhead is dodging? It cant do any active dodging due to the plasma envelope around it (it cant see anything). And trying preprogrammed ones is just going to increase your CEP (why would you want to do that???)

Whiel it isnt impossible to design some sort of manouvering rentry vehicle (just bloody difficult), one has to ask what is the point? Its going to be much more cost and mass effective to load more warheads on the bus.

Or are you considering dodging in space?? Again, its not cost effective (your decoys cant dodge, and if you give them the capability to may as well make them warheads....which rather defeats the object)
 
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?

Not necessarily, what ended the USSR's existence had absolutely nothing to do with Reagan and the actual collapse happened when Bush I was President. To alter or not alter Star Wars is not going to alter the problems Gorbachev has with Glasnost, Perestroika, and satisfying the tightrope walk of reform and dealing with CPSU hardliners.
 

Archibald

Banned
the purpose of the thread was not to discuss merits and feasability of each single ABM system
I second that opinion... :rolleyes:

Could a successful summit have led to a coup in Moscow?

I'm tempted to say that, as of 1987, Gorbachev had the hardliners under control, but of course there's the 1991 military coup...

More generally, does anyone think that an eventual zero nuke agreement in Reykjavik would change USSR / Russia and USA political timelines ?
Would Bush 41 / Clinton / Bush 43 / Obama and Gorbachev / Yeltsin / Putin political lineages been modified in any way ?
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering as 1996 neared Russia and the US would push China, France and Britain to disarm. Britain I think would be the easiest but France and China I don't know.
 

Archibald

Banned
The force de frappe weights quite heavily on France defence budget.
France force de frappe as of 1990 was a triad - air, ground, land based nukes.
The ground component consisted of largely obsolete Pluton short range missiles, to be replaced by Hades. Hades was actually canned in 1993 with a handful of missiles and carriers already build.
Similarly, Le Plateau d'Albion silos were closed in 1996.
So, with or without Reykjavik, the land-based systems are already gone as of 1996.

The air component was two fold: AN-52 gravity bombs (obsoletes since the 70's) and the ASMP mach 3 cruise missile. The ASMP was first carried by 18 Mirage IVP, the last delivered in 1987. The Mirage 2000N was to suceed it, but it is only a sub-variant of the 2000 fighter, and can be turned into 2000 D.

The submarine force had the Redoutable-class undergoing the M4 upgrade. Fortunately the next generation - the Triomphant - only started in 1989.

The way I see a drawdown of the force de Frappe (1986 - 1996)
- land based component is withdrawn circa 1995, as per OTL
- the air component: Mirage IVP + ASMP are withdrawn in 1996 (as per OTL). Mirage 2000N become 2000D.
- submarines: most recent Redoutable (the Inflexible) are turned into SSGN, akin to the first four Ohios. Triomphant gets canned in 1990.

The french Navy would happily sacrifice the Triomphant / M45 / M51 in exchange for a second Charles de Gaulle carrier, or a SSGN, or more Mistral LPH, or some decent air defence frigates.
 
Top