Re:President Jimmy Carter has passed away
by maratc on Sunday December 29, 2024 @06:17PM
(#42544459)
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear: I’m not advocating for this viewpoint (nor against it, actually); I’m just explaining how this “line of thinking” usually goes, since that was a question from GP.
Re:President Jimmy Carter has passed away
by eesmith on Monday December 30, 2024 @03:18AM
(#42547511)
To my understanding, the costs involved in the Soviet response to SDI were small, and had very little effect on national spending, so I don't see how that's important enough to mention. Surely the falling price of oil was more significant, yes? I'll bet the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was also more expensive.
Since gadders' comment is flagged, I don't know the fuller context.
Re:President Jimmy Carter has passed away
by eesmith on Monday December 30, 2024 @02:01PM
(#42552373)
Some commentary about why you gave that link would be nice. I think you meant as a way to say "looks like you are right"?
That is, as far as I can tell, it agrees with me ("responses to SDI were not a major factor in either the collapse of the Soviet Union, nor in the end of the Cold War"), including by citing the same source I gave, the paper by Pavel Podvig.
> In 2014, a declassified CIA paper stated that "In response to SDI, Moscow threatened a variety of military countermeasures in lieu of developing a parallel missile defense system".
The Soviets had very capable scientists who could figure out - like Bethe in the US - that SDI was not feasible, and the easy work-around is to launch more missiles, not build their own SDI.
Or for something more scholarly, from "Did Star Wars Help End the Cold War? Soviet Response to the SDI Program" at https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs25podvig.pdf Science & Global Security, 2017, 25.1: 3-27.
> The evidence on the Soviet response to SDI that emerges from the internal documents largely corroborates the view that the Soviet Union eventually realized that this program did not present a danger to its security because it could be relatively easily countered with simple and effective countermeasures.