4 ms·

>I remember just taking the inevitability of nuclear war almost as a given. It was damn closer than most people realize. That nutball Reagan nearly killed all

>I remember just taking the inevitability of nuclear war almost as a given. It was damn closer than most people realize. That nutball Reagan nearly killed all of us: http://www.alternet.org/story/149821/how_reagan_brought_the_world_to_the_brink_of_nuclear_destruction http://www.alternet.org/story/149821/how_reagan_brought_the_... And, we're not out of the woods yet. If we end up with another madman Republican perhaps like McCain, we'll probably get sent over the edge with Russia since we already know that Putin is also a nut. Not to mention Russia was perhaps (arguably) on its way to launching nukes on a false alarm if it wasn't for one guy who didn't follow orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov#The_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov#The_incident Maybe if he hadn't disobeyed orders someone else would've stopped the launch, maybe not. But, considering the incredible stakes, I think it was all just a bit too close for comfort either way. Moral of the story? Live every day like it's your last day on Earth, because someday it'll be true.

lupin_sansei 12y ago
You might find this interesting to balance some of that out a bit: "Think Again: Ronald Reagan - The Gipper wasn't the warhound his conservative followers would have you think." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again...
- Cowicide 12y ago
  Thank you for your article. Keep in mind, the FP article really doesn't do much to discount the piece I linked to and, as a matter of fact, reinforces just how close Reagan brought us to the brink of nuclear destruction. From the FP article you linked to: "His dread only grew by year's end when he learned that his nuclear buildup and anti-Soviet speeches had so terrified Kremlin leaders that they interpreted a nato war game as preparation for a real attack and put their military on high alert." If it wasn't for reforms in the USSR (see Gorbachev), things might have very well ended in a nuclear holocaust due to Reagan's initial war mongering. > to balance some of that out a bit I'm not sure you read the article I linked to fully. It mentions Reagan's efforts to bring us back from the brink after he first disparaged and dismissed the nuclear freeze movement. The article actually mentions the fact that Reagan even went further than activists had asked for: From the article I linked to: " ... by the time of Reagan’s second term, the nuclear weapons policies of his administration actually went far beyond what the organizers of the freeze campaign had advocated. The Reagan Administration did not just halt the nuclear arms race, it actually began to reverse it." But, for FP to try to polish Reagan up as a man of peace terrified of war is a bit delusional once we consider what it took to finally get him to cool his heels and desperately kick in massive damage control in the nick of time before nuclear armageddon. It's also interesting that FP didn't mention activists and their effect on the issue. And, again, if it wasn't for the dumb luck of Gorbachev taking power, I have sincere doubts that Reagan could have rectified his previous war mongering in time. As I said, we came much closer than most realize and Reagan nearly sent us all off the nuclear rails.
  - lupin_sansei 12y ago
    I read the article. It was interesting but like so many others it puts all the blame at Reagan's feet, and brushes over the culture of extreme paranoia the Soviet leadership had at the time due to poor intelligence: "The greatest catalyst to the Able Archer war scare occurred more than two years earlier. In a May 1981 closed-session meeting of senior KGB officers and Soviet leaders, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and KGB chairman Yuri Andropov bluntly announced that the United States was preparing a secret nuclear attack on the USSR" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Operation_RYAN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Operation_RYAN
    - Cowicide 12y ago
      >I read the article. It was interesting but like so many others it puts all the blame at Reagan's feet, and brushes over the culture of extreme paranoia the Soviet leadership had at the time due to poor intelligence You may have read the article, but I don't think you read it very throughly. They didn't put all the blame on Reagan alone. That's incorrect. They mentioned Soviet culpability within the article. via page two: "An argument can be made, of course, that it was not the Reagan Administration alone that was responsible for either the confrontational Soviet-American relations of the time or the acceleration of the nuclear arms race. The two adversaries had been locked eyeball-to-eyeball since the waning days of the Second World War in 1945. The USSR had spent much of the 1970s stirring up trouble and expanding its influence throughout the "Third World." They had deployed troops to Afghanistan to save their tottering client government in Kabul on Christmas Day 1979. They had pursued several rounds of nuclear buildups of their own (and in fact had deployed medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe first). Soviet leaders, of course, always claimed that their international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because we were out to get them. And we always claimed that our international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because they were out to get us. " Considering the other parts you missed previously, I would suggest you re-read the article I linked to if you want to form a more valid opinion of it.
malka 12y ago
You are mistaken. These men are NOT nuts. making the ennemy think you are nuts is a strategy to make him scared of you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- Cowicide 12y ago
  Considering the guy who personifies the "madman theory" was a disgraced guy like Nixon who was obviously a paranoid, etc. -- I'd take the theory with a grain of salt. :D
acheron 12y ago
It's funny how people who kept warning that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war have never gotten over being completely wrong. They really seem disappointed that it never happened.
- existencebox 12y ago
  I think we can excuse humanity from wanting to "learn from our mistakes" so to say, but to keep in mind that nuclear war isn't really a mistake we'd have much option to learn from post-factum. If there's any chance we were close to the brink (and Reagan or not, we were), we need to do as much as we can to focus on what brought us there and how; but unfortunately, this is in contrast to the main learning mechanism for many humans, where without the _actual_ disaster, there will be as much "well clearly there was nothing to fear" ignorance as there is "the sky is falling", and which is more dangerous is in my opinion debatable.
  - Cowicide 12y ago
    Agreed. It reminds me of people that say the TSA's security theatre has kept us all safe because there hasn't been another major attack on the scale of 911 again.
- Cowicide 12y ago
  >It's funny how people who kept warning that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war have never gotten over being completely wrong. Just because we didn't actually all die in nuclear war doesn't mean people's fears were unfounded. That's a bit of a false argument you're making there. Reagan nearly brought us to nuclear war. If anything, that proved their fears to be correct. >They really seem disappointed that it never happened. I can't speak for "they", but in my case I'm really "disappointed" that he brought us so close to nuclear war. And while we're making false arguments here... If you're content with coming close to nuclear armageddon, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :D

lupin_sansei 12y ago

You might find this interesting to balance some of that out a bit: "Think Again: Ronald Reagan - The Gipper wasn't the warhound his conservative followers would have you think." http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again...

Cowicide 12y ago
Thank you for your article. Keep in mind, the FP article really doesn't do much to discount the piece I linked to and, as a matter of fact, reinforces just how close Reagan brought us to the brink of nuclear destruction. From the FP article you linked to: "His dread only grew by year's end when he learned that his nuclear buildup and anti-Soviet speeches had so terrified Kremlin leaders that they interpreted a nato war game as preparation for a real attack and put their military on high alert." If it wasn't for reforms in the USSR (see Gorbachev), things might have very well ended in a nuclear holocaust due to Reagan's initial war mongering. > to balance some of that out a bit I'm not sure you read the article I linked to fully. It mentions Reagan's efforts to bring us back from the brink after he first disparaged and dismissed the nuclear freeze movement. The article actually mentions the fact that Reagan even went further than activists had asked for: From the article I linked to: " ... by the time of Reagan’s second term, the nuclear weapons policies of his administration actually went far beyond what the organizers of the freeze campaign had advocated. The Reagan Administration did not just halt the nuclear arms race, it actually began to reverse it." But, for FP to try to polish Reagan up as a man of peace terrified of war is a bit delusional once we consider what it took to finally get him to cool his heels and desperately kick in massive damage control in the nick of time before nuclear armageddon. It's also interesting that FP didn't mention activists and their effect on the issue. And, again, if it wasn't for the dumb luck of Gorbachev taking power, I have sincere doubts that Reagan could have rectified his previous war mongering in time. As I said, we came much closer than most realize and Reagan nearly sent us all off the nuclear rails.
- lupin_sansei 12y ago
  I read the article. It was interesting but like so many others it puts all the blame at Reagan's feet, and brushes over the culture of extreme paranoia the Soviet leadership had at the time due to poor intelligence: "The greatest catalyst to the Able Archer war scare occurred more than two years earlier. In a May 1981 closed-session meeting of senior KGB officers and Soviet leaders, General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and KGB chairman Yuri Andropov bluntly announced that the United States was preparing a secret nuclear attack on the USSR" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Operation_RYAN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#Operation_RYAN
  - Cowicide 12y ago
    >I read the article. It was interesting but like so many others it puts all the blame at Reagan's feet, and brushes over the culture of extreme paranoia the Soviet leadership had at the time due to poor intelligence You may have read the article, but I don't think you read it very throughly. They didn't put all the blame on Reagan alone. That's incorrect. They mentioned Soviet culpability within the article. via page two: "An argument can be made, of course, that it was not the Reagan Administration alone that was responsible for either the confrontational Soviet-American relations of the time or the acceleration of the nuclear arms race. The two adversaries had been locked eyeball-to-eyeball since the waning days of the Second World War in 1945. The USSR had spent much of the 1970s stirring up trouble and expanding its influence throughout the "Third World." They had deployed troops to Afghanistan to save their tottering client government in Kabul on Christmas Day 1979. They had pursued several rounds of nuclear buildups of their own (and in fact had deployed medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe first). Soviet leaders, of course, always claimed that their international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because we were out to get them. And we always claimed that our international behavior was defensive in nature -- undertaken because they were out to get us. " Considering the other parts you missed previously, I would suggest you re-read the article I linked to if you want to form a more valid opinion of it.

malka 12y ago

You are mistaken. These men are NOT nuts. making the ennemy think you are nuts is a strategy to make him scared of you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

Cowicide 12y ago
Considering the guy who personifies the "madman theory" was a disgraced guy like Nixon who was obviously a paranoid, etc. -- I'd take the theory with a grain of salt. :D

acheron 12y ago

It's funny how people who kept warning that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war have never gotten over being completely wrong. They really seem disappointed that it never happened.

existencebox 12y ago
I think we can excuse humanity from wanting to "learn from our mistakes" so to say, but to keep in mind that nuclear war isn't really a mistake we'd have much option to learn from post-factum. If there's any chance we were close to the brink (and Reagan or not, we were), we need to do as much as we can to focus on what brought us there and how; but unfortunately, this is in contrast to the main learning mechanism for many humans, where without the _actual_ disaster, there will be as much "well clearly there was nothing to fear" ignorance as there is "the sky is falling", and which is more dangerous is in my opinion debatable.
- Cowicide 12y ago
  Agreed. It reminds me of people that say the TSA's security theatre has kept us all safe because there hasn't been another major attack on the scale of 911 again.
Cowicide 12y ago
>It's funny how people who kept warning that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war have never gotten over being completely wrong. Just because we didn't actually all die in nuclear war doesn't mean people's fears were unfounded. That's a bit of a false argument you're making there. Reagan nearly brought us to nuclear war. If anything, that proved their fears to be correct. >They really seem disappointed that it never happened. I can't speak for "they", but in my case I'm really "disappointed" that he brought us so close to nuclear war. And while we're making false arguments here... If you're content with coming close to nuclear armageddon, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. :D