WI The Cold War Continued And The SDI Continued Recieving Funding

This may have been done before, but if the Soviet Union had introduced reforms across the board in the 60's and 70's who's goal was increased efficiency in manufacturing, agriculture and bureaucracy. Would the Soviet Union been able to continue to exist into the new millennium. With the cold war continuing and as a result would the American SDI and any comparable Soviet project actually produce usable hardware. With the amount of funding the US was putting into it would they have been able to produce land or space based offensive and/or defensive hardware. Would WWIII have happened if the either power could actually intercept ICBM's or be able to to launch kinetic strikes from orbit.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative for info on SDI and the various concepts involved.

Also check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_bombardment for kinetic/orbital weapon info.
 
There's still the threat of SLBMs which I guess would not be easily shot down. And there are enough nuclear warheads in existence that MAD would still apply.
 
The USA was way ahead for SDI, no doubt there.
I think once Brilliant Pebbles got deployed things would be bad for the USSR... but the economic cost to the USA to get there would have been devistating, perhaps more than it could handle.
 

Cook

Banned
SDI only made sense as a defence against accidental and limited missile launch. It gave the receiving nation an opportunity to pause and assess.
It never stood a chance against a full blooded first strike.
And if a serious SDI missile defence had been introduced, the Soviets would have invested more in supersonic cruise missiles, sea or air launched.

Better shields result in better swords, or the musket.

On the plus side the DC-X and Phoenix would have been better funded and probably developed fully.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If I am not mistaken, Soviet strategists at the time figured that the best way to defeat SDI, assuming it could ever be deployed, was simply to fire more missiles. An ICBM without a nuclear warhead is not particularly expensive, and it would not be possible for SDI to be able to tell the difference between a nuclear missile and a decoy. So why not just launch wave after wave of missiles, some armed with nukes and some simply decoys, until the SDI defenses run out of power/ammunition?

I think that SDI's impact is vastly overrated.
 

Cook

Banned
If I am not mistaken, Soviet strategists at the time figured that the best way to defeat SDI, assuming it could ever be deployed, was simply to fire more missiles. An ICBM without a nuclear warhead is not particularly expensive, and it would not be possible for SDI to be able to tell the difference between a nuclear missile and a decoy. So why not just launch wave after wave of missiles, some armed with nukes and some simply decoys, until the SDI defenses run out of power/ammunition?

I think that SDI's impact is vastly overrated.

I read Richard Rhodes’ “Arsenals of Folly” recently which goes into detail the negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev. It’s pretty clear from that and other accounts that the Soviets were very worried about SDI.

You are correct though, and ICBM with multiple independent warheads and a large number of decoys would have been a nightmare. And decoys outside the atmosphere need only be a silver balloon; it would have been indistinguishable from a warhead until re-entry.
 
I guess what I was wondering was if one side of the other could would push the technology far enough that they would have a reliable first strike weapon that could take out a large portion of the enemies launch capability and/or have strong defensive capability in the event of attack.
 
I guess what I was wondering was if one side of the other could would push the technology far enough that they would have a reliable first strike weapon that could take out a large portion of the enemies launch capability and/or have strong defensive capability in the event of attack.

Well, it depends which side gets it.

The US was the status quo power, so more power to the US just means things stay the same. Adventurism by the soviets inhibited. THey superpower status get reduced to a firm number two. Soviet first strike becomes nearly impossible.
 
First off, the funding has continued.
Secondarily, despite the efforts of Gorbachev and Bush I, the US is continuing to threaten Russia...and is certainly continuing the Cold War encirclement policy.
Finally, the easiest way to defeat SDI was mentioned in a novel I read a few years back. In it, there was a scene where the new Soviet President was discussing SDI with the US's Outgoing and New Presidents...and showed a picture of a KGB agent with an oil drum in Red Square...and the same KGB agent, with the same oil drum...in front of the White House. US borders are rather porous. (And there are rumors that the Soviets smuggled in a nuke IOTL...)
 

jedipilot24

Banned
this entire WI is flawed; Communism itself is flawed and incapable of being reformed without destroying itself as seen IRL. Earlier reforms would've just seen an earlier end to the Cold War.
 
Top