4 ms·
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, und
by 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 agoI'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 agoNow 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 agoI'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 agoI 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.