4 ms·
> retaliate in kind so as to ensure that they could not mount a second assault and kill even more people The bigger issue is that they are more likely to initi
by archgoon 11y ago
> retaliate in kind so as to ensure that they could not mount a second assault and kill even more people
The bigger issue is that they are more likely to initiate the strike if they know about this protocol and believe it will reduce the likelihood of a counter strike.
- vidarh 11y agoOr they might be less inclined to strike first to pre-empt a strike. I've mentioned Able Archer 83 elsewhere: The Soviets appears to have gotten close to strike first because they believe the US was preparing to strike. Knowledge of a policy that appeared to indicate a distinct goal of deterring the President from launching a strike might have made the Soviets less nervous. A while afterwards Reagan wrote that he long thought that the Soviet leadership, like the Americans, did not believe a US first strike was a serious possibility. But he eventually learned that this was a flawed assumption: The Soviet leadership saw the US as a possible - even likely - aggressor, and interpreted US actions accordingly. In that context, posturing was incredibly dangerous, and this realisation made him change tack and become determined to sit down and talk to them.