Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: rhombus
Still, no one now seems to think Reagan SHOULD have continued the policies of detente which were in place only a few short years before his election.
Well, Reagan initiated the Start talks. Not exactly Detente but along the same lines. Reagan wasn't President during the early 70's and Nixon wasn't president during the early 80's. War has to be fought on the battlefield as it exists at the time.

Of course if you're saying Reagan was a much better president than Nixon it's really no contest :).

For reference, this is the overview before the text of the START treaty at:

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/start1text.htm
START negotiations began in 1982. The United States sought a treaty that would provide for "deep reductions" in U.S. and Soviet strategic offensive nuclear forces, equal limits on the two sides, and "effective verification." Talks were suspended in 1983, when the Soviets walked out in protest over U.S. intermediate-range missile deployments in Europe. Negotiations resumed in 1985 and Presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin concluded them in July 1991. On May 23, 1992, a protocol was signed between the U.S. and the four Soviet successor states that have weapons covered by START -- Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Taken together, these documents outline complex and often costly procedures that the nations must follow to remain in compliance with START I.

159 posted on 12/28/2006 12:57:41 PM PST by 21stCenturyFreeThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]


To: 21stCenturyFreeThinker
Well, Reagan initiated the Start talks. Not exactly Detente but along the same lines. Reagan wasn't President during the early 70's and Nixon wasn't president during the early 80's. War has to be fought on the battlefield as it exists at the time.

No doubt this is true but there's never an after-the-fact or before-the-fact agreement on the condition of the battlefield is there? The issue is whether or not a stronger US position might not have been taken with the Soviets in the 70s. A stronger position might have worked or it might have resulted in nuclear war...who knows for sure. Reagan's initiation of START in retrospect looks like the right move for the time as he did insist on driving a hard bargain since he also deployed missiles in Europe. I can't help but think he knew he'd have to do such a thing all along and had to bargain from strength. I also think that after all the previous negotiations the Soviets must have been quite surprised to see America not sign off on any agreement just to have an agreement. Of course that could have ended in nuclear war too and if the Soviets were listening to the MSM they probably did think Reagan was just crazy enough to do it. ;-) Thankfully it worked. Who knows if something else might have worked sooner but it is fun to speculate.

170 posted on 12/28/2006 1:36:27 PM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson