[FoRK] beware inevitability! a foil to the technologicalsingularity?

Russell Turpin deafbox
Fri Oct 14 16:32:44 PDT 2005

Kevin Elliott <k-elliott at wiu.edu>:
>Each warhead was more important to the US than it was to the USSR. If the 
>USSR could have convinced the US to reduce warhead count to 0 (and given up 
>it's arsenal at the same time) that was a strategic victory for the USSR. 

It is the case in every treaty between
opponents that each side gives and gets.
That's the nature of such things. A
reduction of US strategic warheads to
zero was so far, far, fucking FAR removed
from anything discussed that talking about
how things would have been IF the USSR
had persuaded the US to do that is much
like discussing your retirement IF you
could get Bill Gates to share a mere
billion or two with you.

>The US DEPENDED on nuclear deterrence for the defense of Europe.  The USSR 
>did not.  If nukes were off the table, their is little doubt that the USSR 
>would have been the likely victor in a conventional

You seem unaware that the US had
several thousand *tactical* nuclear warheads
at the time. (And still.) These were not
part of the SALT discussions, and their
precise purpose in those times was to
provide additional punch in case of land
war in Europe. One of the fears at the
time was that any small conflict in Europe
might grow to the point where NATO
deployed battlefield nukes, to which the
Soviets might respond with an SRBM,
and it all would escalate into a strategic
exchange. There were a variety of moves
in the 1970s to lessen that threat. All
part of detente.

More information about the FoRK mailing list