4 ms·

SDI was never meant to be deployed. It was a ruse to make the USSR overspend on weapons development. The research was real, and some new tech came from it. As w

SDI was never meant to be deployed. It was a ruse to make the USSR overspend on weapons development. The research was real, and some new tech came from it. As well as lots of federal money paid to private contractors. But actually creating a "space shield" was a bluff.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
How do you know this? I haven't had time to read the book in the link. But I have talked to people who worked on the SDI project. They weren't, at the time, under the impression that it was a bluff, and were frustrated when it was shut down. The idea that making your strategic adversary overspend on weapons development might be a good thing also sounds like a post-hoc justification. An enemy who spends more resources on weapons is more dangerous, and places global stability in peril, even if you have invincible defences yourself. And all the more so if you don't have invincible defences because your research program was a bluff and never intended to be deployed in the first place!
- whoopdedo 2y ago
  I've also talked to a person who was in the Pentagon when some disks went "missing" from a room because it had poor locks on it. He had tried to tell someone that they were the wrong locks for the security level of the room but was told "that's not your business". Kissinger became aware during the SALT negotiations of how much the Soviets were misinformed about US nuclear capabilities, and that they tended to overestimate. That imbalance helped him negotiate those treaties. One can assume the State Dept. would want to keep that advantage if they could. The USSR was also concerned about how they would defend themselves against a Western attack. If they weren't they wouldn't be making these treaties. Everyone assumed that if war broke out both sides would be wiped out. The point of the arms race wasn't to win in a war, it was to see who would fold first. Don't forget that "SDI" was an umbrella. If you had some project and could slap that tag on it you were guaranteed a substantial contract for it. That you could get away with promising an arbitrary delivery date made it that much more of a cash cow. And the Pentagon was fine with that since it would never need to be finished. It only had to look convincing.
  - petre 2y ago
    Now I'm not so sure it was a bluff because they are building it again with Starlink like capabilities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency#NDSA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency#NDS... If it was a bluff then great, because the USSR fell apart.
- repelsteeltje 2y ago
  I've heard the bluff claim among historians and I think there is truth to that, though the "make them outspend" motif is more contentious. From https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/2017/01/did_star_wars_help_end_the_col.html https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/2017/01/did_sta...: > The evidence suggests that although the Soviet Union expressed serious concerns about U.S. missile defense program, SDI was not a decisive factor in advancing arms control negotiations. Instead, the program seriously complicated U.S.-Soviet arms control process. SDI also failed to dissuade the Soviet Union from investing in development of ballistic missiles. The Soviet Union quickly identified ways to avoid a technological arms race with the United States and focused on development of advanced missiles and anti-satellite systems to counter missile defenses.
- the-dude 2y ago
  I don't have the answer, but I was reminded of a comment years ago, which linked to a scanned news paper, which contained a bit about it. Comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854234 Scanned news page : https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19800707&id=HpcyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gucFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4108,1220581&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19800707&id=... It talks about out-spending to force negotiation.
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
Wonder how much effect HN regular Clifford Stoll and his SDInet had on Soviet thinking.
jonway 2y ago
This is a pretty ahistorical take, especially considering the stated goal of "SDI" was to develop the ability to destroy warheads during flight, with most of the research projects seemingly focused on the terminal phase. There is no reason to think "SDI was a ruse to make USSR overspend". The Soviet Union experienced a period of liberalization prior to its "parade of sovereignties". Its citizens demanded freedom and would eventually obtain some of it.
- throwaway11460 2y ago
  How is social/economic liberalization in citizen affairs related to them absolutely overspending on and defaulting due to the Buran/Energia project that was supposed to counter SDI?
fidotron 2y ago
I think the difficult part of pulling the bluff off was SDI had to look simultaneously very good against current systems but not perfect and potentially highly vulnerable to future systems. Schelling established, at length, that perfect defence will be interpreted by an adversary as the inevitable first stage in making the first strike, and while him and Kissinger had their disagreements about real politics when it came to the core theory I believe they were aligned. Schelling’s books get widely misinterpreted but are very readable, and anyone wanting more should go straight to the source. Ignore what other people said he said.
mrguyorama 2y ago
Nonsense. Reagan believed that """science""" could do anything, and was told multiple times by people he should have trusted that even pursuing such an anti-nuke system was geopolitically dangerous. He was an old man with a preference for fake "hollywood" style realities over his own reality, and he was afraid of dying to nuclear weapons. He wanted a magic cope blanket so that he could keep role playing god
euroderf 2y ago
AFAICT the overspending would have been on the US side. At the margin, offense was going to be cheaper than defense. Unless you'd be satisfied with, say, a 99% intercept rate.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

How do you know this? I haven't had time to read the book in the link. But I have talked to people who worked on the SDI project. They weren't, at the time, under the impression that it was a bluff, and were frustrated when it was shut down. The idea that making your strategic adversary overspend on weapons development might be a good thing also sounds like a post-hoc justification. An enemy who spends more resources on weapons is more dangerous, and places global stability in peril, even if you have invincible defences yourself. And all the more so if you don't have invincible defences because your research program was a bluff and never intended to be deployed in the first place!

whoopdedo 2y ago
I've also talked to a person who was in the Pentagon when some disks went "missing" from a room because it had poor locks on it. He had tried to tell someone that they were the wrong locks for the security level of the room but was told "that's not your business". Kissinger became aware during the SALT negotiations of how much the Soviets were misinformed about US nuclear capabilities, and that they tended to overestimate. That imbalance helped him negotiate those treaties. One can assume the State Dept. would want to keep that advantage if they could. The USSR was also concerned about how they would defend themselves against a Western attack. If they weren't they wouldn't be making these treaties. Everyone assumed that if war broke out both sides would be wiped out. The point of the arms race wasn't to win in a war, it was to see who would fold first. Don't forget that "SDI" was an umbrella. If you had some project and could slap that tag on it you were guaranteed a substantial contract for it. That you could get away with promising an arbitrary delivery date made it that much more of a cash cow. And the Pentagon was fine with that since it would never need to be finished. It only had to look convincing.
- petre 2y ago
  Now I'm not so sure it was a bluff because they are building it again with Starlink like capabilities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency#NDSA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency#NDS... If it was a bluff then great, because the USSR fell apart.
repelsteeltje 2y ago
I've heard the bluff claim among historians and I think there is truth to that, though the "make them outspend" motif is more contentious. From https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/2017/01/did_star_wars_help_end_the_col.html https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/2017/01/did_sta...: > The evidence suggests that although the Soviet Union expressed serious concerns about U.S. missile defense program, SDI was not a decisive factor in advancing arms control negotiations. Instead, the program seriously complicated U.S.-Soviet arms control process. SDI also failed to dissuade the Soviet Union from investing in development of ballistic missiles. The Soviet Union quickly identified ways to avoid a technological arms race with the United States and focused on development of advanced missiles and anti-satellite systems to counter missile defenses.
the-dude 2y ago
I don't have the answer, but I was reminded of a comment years ago, which linked to a scanned news paper, which contained a bit about it. Comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20854234 Scanned news page : https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19800707&id=HpcyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gucFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4108,1220581&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19800707&id=... It talks about out-spending to force negotiation.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago

Wonder how much effect HN regular Clifford Stoll and his SDInet had on Soviet thinking.

jonway 2y ago

This is a pretty ahistorical take, especially considering the stated goal of "SDI" was to develop the ability to destroy warheads during flight, with most of the research projects seemingly focused on the terminal phase. There is no reason to think "SDI was a ruse to make USSR overspend". The Soviet Union experienced a period of liberalization prior to its "parade of sovereignties". Its citizens demanded freedom and would eventually obtain some of it.

throwaway11460 2y ago
How is social/economic liberalization in citizen affairs related to them absolutely overspending on and defaulting due to the Buran/Energia project that was supposed to counter SDI?

fidotron 2y ago

I think the difficult part of pulling the bluff off was SDI had to look simultaneously very good against current systems but not perfect and potentially highly vulnerable to future systems. Schelling established, at length, that perfect defence will be interpreted by an adversary as the inevitable first stage in making the first strike, and while him and Kissinger had their disagreements about real politics when it came to the core theory I believe they were aligned. Schelling’s books get widely misinterpreted but are very readable, and anyone wanting more should go straight to the source. Ignore what other people said he said.

mrguyorama 2y ago

Nonsense. Reagan believed that """science""" could do anything, and was told multiple times by people he should have trusted that even pursuing such an anti-nuke system was geopolitically dangerous. He was an old man with a preference for fake "hollywood" style realities over his own reality, and he was afraid of dying to nuclear weapons. He wanted a magic cope blanket so that he could keep role playing god

euroderf 2y ago

AFAICT the overspending would have been on the US side. At the margin, offense was going to be cheaper than defense. Unless you'd be satisfied with, say, a 99% intercept rate.