New Documents Reveal How a 1980s Nuclear War Scare Became a Full-Blown Crisis

[bananas]

Source: Wired

During 10 days in November 1983, the United States and the Soviet Union nearly started a nuclear war. Newly declassified documents from the CIA, NSA, KGB, and senior officials in both countries reveal just how close we came to mutually assured destruction — over a military exercise.

That exercise, Able Archer 83, simulated the transition by NATO from a conventional war to a nuclear war, culminating in the simulated release of warheads against the Soviet Union. NATO changed its readiness condition during Able Archer to DEFCON 1 , the highest level. The Soviets interpreted the simulation as a ruse to conceal a first strike and readied their nukes. At this period in history, and especially during the exercise, a single false alarm or miscalculation could have brought Armageddon.

<snip>

Oleg Gordievsky , a CIA and MI6 source during the Cold War , was previously known to have warned the West about these fears, but the CIA article identifies a second source of this information: a Czech intelligence officer with ties to the KGB who “noted that his counterparts were obsessed with the historical parallel between 1941 and 1983. He believed this feeling was almost visceral, not intellectual, and deeply affected Soviet thinking.”

<snip>

Documents obtained by Jones detail a massive KGB intelligence-gathering mission called Operation RYaN. (The name is a Russian acronym for “nuclear missile attack.”) According to the CIA article, RYaN was “for real” and accelerated in the early 1980s during the scare. The goal was to find out if and when the United States and NATO would attack. According to KGB instructions sent to agents in London, Soviet spies were to monitor bomb shelters, blood banks, military bases and key financial and religious leaders for signs of war preparations. “Many of the assigned observations would have been very poor indicators of a nuclear attack,” Jones warns.

<snip>

Read more: http://wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/able-archer-scare/

[Sand Wind]

1. This look like a Reagan psy operation.nt.

[bananas]

3. Reagans advisors didn't realize how seriously the Soviets were taking it. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Yeah, he about shit himself when we figured it out.

Why this is 'late breaking news' I dunno. We've known about this for years, publicly.

[Posteritatis]

38. More archival material comes out every couple of years

It often gives a different perspective, or adds more detail to the existing ones.

[Ash_F]

2. Decades later, our congressmen and generals still think it's awesome

...to run war simulations right off the coasts of various countries.

History. Never learn anything.

[AverageJoe90]

13. Yeah, but luckily, the risk of full-blown global nuclear war is minute today, compared to 1983-84.

There does remain, however, the concern about flashpoints for possible more limited engagements, such as Israel-Iran, or India vs. Pakistan, and certainly, that of nuclear terrorism as well.

At least, however, we can rest a lot easier about full-scale exchanges these days, thanks to the collapse of the U.S.S.R., and despite neo-con fearmongering in recent years.....

[stevenleser]

18. Dont be so sure: There was another incident in 1995 that could easily happen today as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident

The Norwegian rocket incident, also known as the Black Brant scare, occurred on January 25, 1995, when a team of Norwegian and American scientists launched a Black Brant XII four-stage sounding rocket from the Andøya Rocket Range off the northwestern coast of Norway. The rocket, which carried scientific equipment to study the aurora borealis over Svalbard, flew on a high northbound trajectory, which included an air corridor that stretches from Minuteman-III nuclear missile silos in North Dakota, all the way to the Russian capital city of Moscow.
During its flight, the rocket eventually reached an altitude of 1,453 kilometers (903 mi), resembling a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Trident missile. As a result, Russian nuclear forces were put on high alert, and the nuclear weapons command suitcase was brought to Russian president Boris Yeltsin,[citation needed] who then had to decide whether to launch a nuclear barrage against the United States

[AverageJoe90]

19. Yes, I've heard of that, Steve. It doesn't really change the facts at all, though.

The Black Brant incident was nothing more than an extreme statistical fluke; the chances of those exact circumstances coming together were about as much as any of us being killed in an automobile wreck on any given year. And, unlike the Petrov incident, this particular event was also pretty well overblown, too(also a major part of the reason why it's not nearly as well known as the incident in 1983).

[stevenleser]

21. It might be a fluke, but this only has to go the wrong way 1 time. That's whats so scary about it.

We need to get rid of these things once and for all.

[AverageJoe90]

37. That much is very true, I think. n/t

[Posteritatis]

39. There's a good McNamara quote about that:

"Okay. Any military commander who is honest with himself, or with those he's speaking to, will admit that he has made mistakes in the application of military power. He's killed people unnecessarily — his own troops or other troops — through mistakes, through errors of judgment. A hundred, or thousands, or tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand. But, he hasn't destroyed nations.

And the conventional wisdom is don't make the same mistake twice, learn from your mistakes. And we all do. Maybe we make the same mistake three times, but hopefully not four or five. They'll be no learning period with nuclear weapons. You make one mistake and you're going to destroy nations."

[bananas]

23. Joe, there's been enough of these flukes to do decent statistical analysis.

Martin Hellman's analysis has been independently confirmed by Seth Baum et al.
The deterrence failure rate averages about 1% per year.
And Martin Hellman is not a neo-con at all - he's a long-term peace activist,
and was recently named an "Engineering Hero": http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017103199

Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia
Seth Baum
Ethical Technology
Posted: Jan 10, 2013
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/baum20130110

Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia
An analysis of the possibility that the US or Russia could mistakenly conclude it is under attack and launch nuclear weapons in what it believes to be a counterattack.
Anthony M. Barrett, Seth D. Baum, and Kelly R. Hostetler. "Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia". Science and Global Security, forthcoming.
http://sethbaum.com/ac/fc_NuclearWar.html

[yurbud]

33. Israel-Iran is the only one that could escalate to a world war, depending on

what they hit, how hard, and whether it's sustained or a one time hit and run.

[AverageJoe90]

36. And I doubt even that would escalate that far.....

Too many people in both D.C. and Moscow, still remember the bad old days of the '80s, so unless a guy like V. Zhirinovsky were to ever take power, I doubt there would be a world war over Israel-Iran.....though, then again, a regional war, which is infinitely more likely, btw, would be bad enough......

[leveymg]

51. There's a factor of escalating regional war in MENA and the Gulf that increases the risks

We're already well into the spread of a regional religious war due to the unleashing of the Saudi/GCC backed Jihadis against targeted regional adversaries - Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanese Hezbollah. Once that escalates, the calculations have to be revised dramatically upwards for stripwire mass casualty incidents.

The danger of third-party WMD incidents is rising, and we're effectively doing nothing to pressure the Saudi/GCC states to deescalate.

There are problems and costs associated with pressuring the Saudis, of course, not the least of which is political because of the penetration of Saudi ownership and influence over US government and media. And, compounding that, Israel has concluded a tactical alliance with the oil state Sunni Arabs, largely out of its own fears and animosity toward Iran and the Shi'ia.

With the passing away of Pax Americana and relatively easy solutions in the region, the U.S. is largely deadlocked at this point, and the odds are, I am afraid, increasingly stacked against peaceful outcomes.

[gateley]

4. Yikes! Remember Fail Safe?

[premium]

5. Watched it on the Military Channel last week,

We were so lucky that a Soviet Radar Officer was on duty that night who refused to believe that we would launch piecemeal. The true hero in this crises was that brave Soviet Officer.

[marmar]

6. As a middle-schooler in the mid-80s, I remember being terrified that Raygun and Andropov......

...... were going to nuke us all.

[Pterodactyl]

40. I was especially scared of Andropov.

[Ter]

7. Wonder how the world would look today...

How long it would have lasted and how many countries got involved would determine many things. I suspect it would kill about 3 billion people. Many would have survived, but depends on the above. Imagine 2013: Earth population 1 billion? Or maybe even as bad as 50 million. Some here will say it could have killed everyone, but I'd argue that. Sure, i could be wrong, just my opinion...

[defacto7]

8. I have read that the southern

hemisphere would have been the only relatively safe place to be. It's the northern hemisphere that would have been devastated and if the nuclear events went on without restraint, there would have been little remaining North of 15 degrees South latitude in the long run. If there were some restraint... the outcome, though less severe, still could not be calculated.

[unc70]

17. Watch the original movie "On the Beach"

While there are some flaws in the underlying nuclear science of the mid 1950's used in the book and original movie, the story is roughly this Southern Hemisphere concept.

[Peace Patriot]

24. All life on earth would likely be snuffed out by even a limited nuclear exchange

in a couple of months time, due to dust clouds in the atmosphere that would block photosynthesis. Plants dead; animals next. See Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark."

The horrors of immediate mass death by even a limited nuclear exchange, plus the horrors of radiation poisoning, would not be the end of it.

This is why humanity must give up nuclear weapons. The risks of a limited nuclear exchange are greater than the risks of an all-out nuclear exchange. The demise of the Soviet Union, for instance, has not diminished the risk of the end of life on earth from nuclear weapons.

[Ter]

31. Impossibe

It would take an asteroid the size of Texas to do that. Some plants would survive, and with millions dead, roaches and rats would flourish like never before.

Remember, a super volcano would produce a "nuclear winter" for longer than if every nuke went off at once. There have been many super volcano explosions, including one or two when there were early humans. Life survived.

I am one liberal who doubts scientific theory. They talk out of their ass an awful lot, and no theory is true unless it happens. I'm not convinced the nuclear winter would last more than a few months to two years.

[alfredo]

9. Reagan made his "bombing Russia" joke in 1984.

Clueless asshole.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. He actually called it "the Evil Empire"

which made his "joke" even worse.

[Diclotican]

14. alfredo

alfredo

The Russians was "not amused" about the joke, when Reagan in 1984 made his infamous joke about a attack on Soviet Union over a open mike in 1984.. In fact the russians was furious - and already a bad climate was going from bad to worse until 1985-1986 when Reagan and Gorbatsjev for the first time met, and discovered that they did had some thing in common - and I guess specially Reagan discovered that in Gorbatsjev he might had a person to "work with" as later writer have told it to be...

But the late stages of the cold war - the implosion of the Berlin Wall - and the end of the cold war as it was - when USSR broke up into 15 different states - could not have been possible, if it was not for the fact that Gorbatsjev wanted changes in his own part of the world.. Even though I doubt he wanted to break up the Soviet union... He wanted to change it, to do it better - but he was not exactly happy about it all going down the tube as it did, in 1990 and 1991 when first a coup - and then a long dragged out death was the end of the cold war... If Gorbatsjev had been a hardliner like Andropov was it - the cold war could have ended rather different - or could in fact have been there even today... One of the reasons USSR broke up - was because the russians (and all the other people inside the union) lost fear of the KGB, who had forced all the different communities and cultures to be as one - under the treat of prison for a long time. When Gorbatsjev in 1988, disbanded the use of the Gulag System - who had been one of the tools, to scare people straight - the fear of KGB, and the Gulag System broke down.. It doesn't helped that Gorbatsjev in 1985-88 also managed to retire most of the old guard of generals, who even had links to Stalin in the past.. Most of them was old, but was kept on guard for a long time, and in the late 1980s most of them was retried - forcefully by the government - or "voluntary", given a decent retirement - and time to write their memories - but some was kept - and in 1990, the world should experience a power strugle right in the middle of the Soviet Union, as the KGB and some of the old guard was trying to put them self up as new leaders - and forcefully retire Gorbatsjev who was at a Holiday at Crimea.. It ended in a far less dangerous situation, as the old guard - and KGB leaders was not in charge for a long time - much thank to the russian population who stood up to the coup generals - and demanded fear and democratic elections.. Gorbatsjev was sidelined - and was not coming back before newer, and different forces had emerged from the shadows - and in 1991, the Soviet Union ended its history - in a rather peacefully way, rather than after a Nuclear Holocaust.. (thankfully)

In the US, Reagan is given the credit for ending the cold war - as he was outspending the USSR.. But the cold war could have ended far worse than it did - if not the counterpart Gorbatsjev had not been in Kremlin.. If Gorbatsjev had not been willing to give Glasnost and Perestroika a chance to success - and was not willing to use the Soviet Union military might to squeeze the rebellion in its "sphere of influence" in Eastern Europe - the cold war could have been going on for another decade or two.. If it was not for the fact that Gorbatsjev understood that USSR was in a nose dive economical speaking - and needed to use their economical power, to civilian use rather than for a bloated military use - USSR could have lived on, for another decade - maybe even today..

And maybe most important - Gorbatsjev and Reagan was very close to make a deal - where their nuclear weapons would be reduced to a minimum - and possible a nuclear weapons disbandment between the two states - But Gorbatsjev wanted Reagan to make a gesture of good will - the disbandment of the "star wars program" who Reagan was pushing for since he got into office in 1980. Reagen refused - even if he was indeed in agreement that all the nuclear weapons the US and the USSR had together was to much - and that a reducing in the nuclear arsenal was a plus for both sides - Gorbatsjev have been said to be furious about the refusal from Reagan - and was pushing from at least a statement from the both of them - where they would stand together as one - to confirm a promise to a deal - where a disarmament, and disbandment of nuclear weapons was a possibility.. All until the end where the two leaders was going their way - he tried again, and again, and then again to make the case for a treaty or at least a public statement about the intend to disarm and to disband nuclear weapons on a stage never seen before.. Reagan again refused - and Gorbatsjev could just walk away and se a golden opportunity of a century go away - because of a stubborn old man who refused to get rid of ONE of his toys... Still over 20 year later - Gorbatsjev was furious when he was asked about that case.. And it is not often you have seen Gorbatsjev ANGRY in public.. But even after 20 year - he was clearly shaken up and angry about it...

Diclotican

[alfredo]

20. We had known the USSR was going to collapse for decades. I don't

think we needed Reagan to push the issue. The USSR was putting little into infrastructure and could not adapt to a changing marketplace. Their roads and factories were crumbling, but their military got whatever it needed. Their militarism further weakened the nation. The long disastrous war in Afghanistan made matters worse.


Our military and intel services knew the Soviet Union was on a glide path down for at least 30 years before the fall. Reagan wanted the fall to be his legacy. He didn't care if he threw Russia into chaos.

BTW
Osama bin Laden learned how to fight us through his experiences in the Afghan/Russian war. If the Afghans could bleed the Soviets dry in a long bloody war, they could do the same to the US. Bush was played big time by Osama. Osama pulled the strings and made Bush dance.

[Diclotican]

25. alfredo

alfredo

Well if the US know that USSR would fall - I wonder why non of the intelligence agency es had a clue when it collapsed - first the Eastern block - and then USSR itself.. CIA and the rest of the more than 16 different intelligence agency es in the US, was pretty clear about that USSR was indeed in problems - but non of them foresaw what would really happened - in 1989 the CIA was at best unsure what really was happening in the fall... And for the most part they got it all wrong according to what really was happening in Eastern Germany in 1989... Specially the fact in November 1989, when the wall sudden really just collapsed over itself - and the east german government just of imploded on itself...

But you are right about USSR not putting to much into infrastructure as it should have been.. Specially when it come to civilian infrastructure, like housing USSR was a horrible country to live in. Mostly because their economical system kind of was going down the tubes... USSR was a country where civilians had to stay in ques for rather common households things - but the military could ask for - and was given space- age tools for weapons... And that was one of the reasons Gorbatsjev wanted to change things in USSR... If he had been in office, lets say 15-20 year before he got into office as young man of 54!, he might as well had been able to turn the ship around - or at least made some more progress in the civilian sector than it did in the late 1980..

It is also true USSR have had an economy who was horrible in disarray - as the russians was deeply aware of - but the government was either not willing or able to admit - they had a economical disaster on its hand.. The cold war - with all its fear about "the other" also was put a string on the economy in the USSR.. It was not to known abroad - specially in the west - but the russians really feared NATO - and the US capability to wage war on russian land.. All the time back to 1945 when Europe was split in two - and the cold war was on its coldest - the real fear was about a war against Russia from the west. The german experience between 1941-1944 gave the russians a sour back That even today - more than 70 year later, is giving many russians a shill in its spine - and some histories about grandparents who had to either endure horrible things - or who had to fight in the "great war for the motherland" as the russians call the war back home in Russia.. Even though the USSR was able to have its own nuclear weapons in 1949 - the reality was thats Russia was a poor country, with a devastated infrastructure - and was not able to muster the same economy and resources as the West had - thanks to interest free loans and outright gifts from the US.. They had to rebuild a country - who was truly devastated by the war - and where over 20 million if its people was killed by the war.. When 20 million dies in 4 years time - it make a impact of a country as a whole. Specially as the germans really did its best to destroy whatever infrastructure USSR had on their way back to germany in 1944... All this had to be replaced and rebuild if Russia and USSR was to be a modern country - the leaders no doubt understood how important it was - but the fear and maybe also anger who was there - under most of the cold war, also meant that USSR had to defend itself, any means necessary against a war who could start anytime.. And it was many generals - and politic ans who wanted a war with USSR, and that right after World War two was officially ended - but thankfully to mighty presidents - and prime minister who understood the importance of at least some time to rebuild - it was never made into reality - even though Stalin for the most was was sure about the possibility of USA going to war against USSR anytime - anywhere.,. H was had no trust what so ever with the West in general... He had this little thing called paranoia deep in his soul..

Osama Bin Laden and most of the Islamic warriors learned very good, the lessons from the Russian-Afghan war in the 1980s - if they could bleed dry USSR in the mountains of Afghanistan - they could do the same to US in the early 2000s . And even though most americans will never admit to it - Osama was the puppet master - And Bush jr the puppet.. He danced the dance - and Osama Bin Laden was hiding in plain sight in Pakistan... And for more than a decade could just sit back, and follow how the US did the same mistakes - stupid mistakes as the Soviets did in the same country... I guess even when he was killed by US special forces - he was contend with what he did - he broke the back on USA, and was given the world a chance to se what a cunt US really could be if they was hurt..

And the sad part, is that the US are in more than once glance, on the same glide path as the USSR was - a struggling population - a infrastructure who is in need or repair - an elite who is more than capable of doing something with it all - but who could not care - or are not willing to put then finger in the ground - and decide about where it would go next.. You have also a situation where you have a military who is given - almost everything their wanted - and a lot of things that is not wanted - but who the government trow at it anyway - and the US military/intelligence system have a budget who is out of control - and you also have a "black budget" who no one know how big is, and if it really goes to the defense of the US or its friends and allied...

Diclotican

[alfredo]

27. Our intelligence agencies needed a threat to keep the funding flowing in. To react is an admission

that they have been padding their reports on Soviet strength.* Anyway, there's that old saying about not getting in the way when your adversary is destroying itself. Any external provocation could unite the Soviets like we saw with Iran and Bush's Axis of Evil designation.


*There were questions about whether the CIA was being honest about the state of the USSR.

[Diclotican]

29. alfredo

alfredo

I guess you are right there - that they needed a enemy - a treath to make the funding flowing in.. And to say to the US president, that USSR are not a treath to the US anymore - as their economy is tanking - and their infrastructure is decaying was maybe not the smartest thing to tell Reagan - when he was beliving that USSR wanted to go to war in Europe at any moment.. And the retoric coming out from the USS before 1985 was less than promising for any etente between the two nations either... The old guard around Andropov and Co was no less ugly in their rethoric than the west was and on the outside, the USSR indeed was looking like a great military mashine - with a lot of weapons capable of ruining any day in the rest of the world..

The Bush axis of evil designation was maybe one of the most stupid statements that man did, in all his presidency - (not that it was others that was not at par with it) And I guess Iran got a cold chill - as they had pitched their own nuclear program to the table - for a peacefully solution for the bad blood between the two nations - and was rebuted by an ignorant administration, who was hellbendt on going to war with Iraq...

Diclotican

[alfredo]

32. Iran hated the Taliban and al Qaeda, in part because they were Sunni. Iran even helped

us against al Qaeda.

I think Bush's actions pushed Iran to the right and into the arms of Ahmadinejad.


Paranoia was a leading feature of the old conservatives in the Kremlin. A little provocation went a long way.


At first the military loved Bush. There was no guns or butter discussion, they got the guns and the butter and we got the shaft. When it became clear that his wars were decimating our military, his reception was not as warm. We lost a lot of NCO's and mid grade officers to the private sector. That was a real brain drain. Those Majors are the backbone of officer ranks.

[Diclotican]

34. alfredo

alfredo

Indeed - Iranians have no love for Al-Qauda, Taliban or Saudi-Arabia for that matter - and if it had not been US who invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the iranians would have doing it - as they was seeking to punish the Taliban, for killing their diplomatic staffers in Kabul - the Taliban had no qualm about killing diplomatic staff, who was residing in Kabul - and who under international law, was protected against exactly this things... And have been that - since the Parthia-ns and Eastern Romans had made international agreements and treaties AD 500s or so.. And even the Islamic Caliphate, who both Al-Qauda and Taliban seek to return to the world - accepted the idea that diplomatic staff was protected against violence from the host country.. In this case Afghanistan - and the host of the country was pr then, the Taliban, who had the capital..

Paranoia was definitely a feature who had the old guard in Kremlin in their firm grasp - and it was not easy to even try to explain the issue if you had an opinion about it.. And if you wanted to get up in the Soviet power structure - you better keep your mouth shut - and work inside the system. And not challenge the status Que - even if it was clearly for everyone that a change had to start....

And I guess - the provocation from the US, who sometimes happened by accident - sometimes on purpose - was making the old guard in Kremlin really going off their rukors - and into a stage of paranoia and fear.. Remember, this was the guys who had grown up under Stalin - had been young when Stalin was in charge - and had survived long enough to sit on the top after a long and sometimes troublesome rise to power.. No one of them was not hurt by the past - and had no illusions about the future - other than the need to keep it tighter any means nessesary...

The irony of it all -is maybe the fact that the military - who loved Bush, finally the restraints from the Clinton eras where they had almost been "starving" in difference from what they had been doing before the Clinton era. The Clinton was no friends of the military - and wanted to do something with the system - and put the military on a strict diet for a while.. It helped Clinton get the money necessary for other means - even though it also meant that the military had to do without old budgets.. And had to change to a different world... But as you point out - the many wars decimated the army - not just in hardware but also in man power - many was maimed for the rest of their life - because the LEADERSHIP in Pentagon and The White House was not able, or willing to do the job they had - to make sure the soldiers had the best weapons and equipment at hand, when going to war.. And the coldness the Administration of Bush responded to the dear straits from the armed forces, was not making their some friends in the uniformed ranks either.. It is not the generals who make up the army - it is the NCO and mid grade officers who make up an army, without them, an army is just as weak as the weakest link.. It in the NCO and mid grade officers the know how about how to make an army function really is - and it is there some of the best officers are made - not just by going to West Point.. Even though going to West point really make an carrier in the military a good one..

Diclotican

[alfredo]

35. Our neo conservative movement was created by an old Trotskyite. They weren't anti

communist as much as they were anti Stalin. It evolved into anti communism when they saw political benefit of that evolution.




Irvine Kristol, father of William Kristol was the father of the Neo Con movement. He never denounced his Socialism.


The cuts made by Clinton followed the plan spelled out during the Reagan/Bush years. I think it was Cheney/Rumsfeld that cooked up the plan. They wanted a leaner military. I can't remember the term they used. So Clinton continued the policy but got blamed for it.


Even Training Officers and NCO's were deployed, leaving our soldiers without experienced teachers.

[Diclotican]

42. alfredo

alfredo

Indeed -a old Trots kite, that would turn someones head to blow up - if they had known, that a old communist was behind the neo-conservative ideology - and I know about the issue between Trotsky, and Stalin.. In the end it was Stalin that won - as Trotsky was discovered with an ice pick in his head... He was in fact living in Norway for a while in 1939-1940, but was traveling to Mexico where he was killed by NKVD on order from Stalin itself.. He and Trotsky had a fallout many years before - where Trotsky who had been on the front with Lenin - Stalin on the other hand, had not that privilege - for the most part - before and under the revolution he had been just one of many minor "officials" who also have had a checkered past with the old regime.. Stalin had been arrested for bank thefts more than once to financed the revolutionary movement - and even when he was on his highest power - in 1936, and was wisting his old mother - she have been known to have stated - that she would have been more proud about him, if he had been a priest in the Orthodox Church - rather than the supreme leader of the Soviet Union... She was not to impressed about the whole affair..

It is somewhat of a irony if the neo-conservative movement for the most part is the result of a trotsky movement against Stalin, in the 1930s and 1940s - I guess a old man I know - who is a hard line Republican - and have more than once public speaking about the greatness of neo-conservative - and have even tried his best to tell me how great the neo-conservative movement really are - would have exploded if he had known - that the neo-conservative movement was indeed the product of old troskites who survived the purge in Soviet - or was able to leave for better places..

I wonder why the media are not put William kristol in the spot - and ask why his old father - was making up a movement of neo-conservatism - when he himself was as a old Trotsky supporter - and never denounced his belief in Socialism himself.. I guess William would have exploded in more than one way if that had been known for a larger audience.. Not to say many of the conservatives who have followed the neo-conservative path - would have turned its back on the whole movement...

After the cold war ended - it might not be the same use of a million strong army - and the cuts Clinton really managed to do - did a lot to freeze up a lot of money that could be used elsewhere - but many have blamed Clinton because he cut to deep - and cut on the wrong parts... And he got most of the blame - many conservatives have blamed Clinton for most things happening - even after he was not longer in Power to be honest.. And they have used terms to express their hatred for Clinton that is at best insulting - at worst something that should have put them in a prison...

Experienced teachers is important - that be in civilian use - or in a military capacity - and NCO and training officers is important to the well-being on all type of military service.. At least, that is what I have been tough..

Diclotican

[alfredo]

43. I think the neocons are aware of Irving Kristol's past. He was quite open about his

early beliefs.


I wonder if the Bush Doctrine was inspired by Trotsky's constant revolution?

[Diclotican]

48. alfredo

alfredo

It wil kill someone I know - who is deep into neo-conservatisme - if the whole case - is that the whole ideology is based on Trotskys constant revolution...

Diclotican

[Kolesar]

22. Old Bush &the Saudis conspired to overproduce oil and drive down the price of the Soviets' ...

... big source of foreign cash. They had common cause that they both hated the atheists or some crap like that. I think shutting off the nukes after Chernobyl also hurt the Soviets' economy, but that is just my hunch.

Not to take anything away from your account of Gorby !

"From what I've seen of Russian ballpoint pens, I'd guess nuclear weapons would be one of the things they do poorly". -- Andy Rooney

[Diclotican]

26. Kolesar

Kolesar

The Old bush and saudis did their share to drive down the price of oil - to devastated the economy in the USSR. Specially for a country like USSR, who had to sell oil to get foreign money - who could be used to rebuild the infrastructure - and to make things more easy for a uneasy population.. The 1980s and early 1990s was a bad time to be exporting raw products like oil and gas... And USSR did that a lot

Chernobyl and the disaster that followed really was hurting a country who was struggling as it was - Many of the nuclear reactors was shut down - as necessary refits was needed - but I doubt they was closing down all their nuclear reactors over Chernobyl the USSR was in need of their nuclear power plants - and the 1970s and 1980s was a time when USSR did a lot of building of nuclear reactors - to make sure "cheap" electricity was there for the people.. But then again after 1986, no new reactors was been build in the USSR - as most people really got a scare about the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl.. And even today - more than 25 year since the fallout and the disaster itself - the debris who still are there - is a looming Shadow about the past - present and future in the mind of ukrainians - and the russians alike. But the one thing that broke the camels back was possible the war in Afghanistan between 1980 and 1988.. That really hurt the russian economy more than anything else what happened in the 1980s.. And still is something that really hurt the pride of any soldier or officers in the russian army.. Who had to make the brunt of the loss in that war.. It is a reason the Russian Army does what they does in the "stan" republics inside the Russian federation - as they really, really hate the Islamic, who was given a free rain the 1990s, as the russians was not able, or willing to stop them then.. And today -the russians are not any near the resources it had when it was the mighty Soviet Red Army.. The current army is just a Shadow of its older glory...

I guess Andy Roony for all his wits - made a bad joke there - as they did a far better job making nuclear weapons - than ballpoint pens

Diclotican

[Kolesar]

50. A study revealed the 90% of the Air Force missile fleet would probably not work

I read this headline in the 1970s. I was baffled because, when I was a teenager, I revered everything that the Air Force did. However, there are statistical methods to determine the probability that complex systems will work, and that study revealed that the missile fleet was trying to do impossible engineering. 1960s technology just was not adequate.

Both countries got screwed by their military complexes.

[leveymg]

52. A former launch officer told me the same thing in the early '80s. But, the remainder that would

work was enough to destroy most of human civilization several times over. Same thing today - even though the numbers are smaller, the technology is more advanced, and the actual destruction is likely to be about the same.

Then, there's the problems associated with proliferation, destabilization, and the complexity of multiple regional nuclear adversaries, particularly Pakistan-India-Israel. That is real - Iran is theoretical.

I don't feel that we're out of the woods, at all.

[Kolesar]

54. Pakistan just had an election

& I lost track of how it came out.
Had a rough week: a screening test and then everything was backed up at work
With you on your account of the nuclear planet, though.

[Diclotican]

55. Kolesar

Kolesar

I would not be surprised if it was the truth - as the missiles of the 1960 era was advanced stuff - you know - even NASA and the space program hit a lot of snags before they was able to make the missile works as it should - a lot of early rockets was kind of blowing up in their face as they was readied for space flight.. Not much of it is known to everyone - but NASA had a lot of smaller rockets who did more harm for NASA than for any others. But the ones they managed to put together - and who worked as it should did a amazing job, putting man in space - and make them come back safe.. The Russians had their share of accidents and rockets who blow up on lunch pads all over the country - Not to say the missile silos where the primitive rockets filled with solid rocket fuel could explode if not cared for in the right fashions.. And when most of the missile systems was supervised by conscripts - it was often accidents - as they was not given enough knowledge about how to safeguard the missiles as they should.. But they got a hang on it too - both the more civilian use of the missiles - and the military use - who scared the US into making a lot of missiles it was later one revealed was not a danger... The infamous "missile gap" between USSR and USA, where the US had the misfortunes of being the ones who lacked parity with USSR.. As it was - the USSR had not that missile gap - even though they had a few more missiles - but for the most part the missiles was not even in their pads - as the missile systems the US believed them to have - was not there yet.. The silos who was a nightmare for most NATO/US generals in Pentagon and in Brussels - was mostly from the late 1960s, early 1970s - where the USSR did had missile silos capable of making a bad day for everyone on the "business" end of a re-entry vehicle..

And both got screwed by their military complexes - thats true - but the fear from their leaders also was part of it.. If Kennedy and Kruskhow had been able to talk things over - and understood that the other part was not as dangerous as someone was trying to tell - most of the cold war could have been over by 1970... But thanks to his untimely death - killed by someone who wanted him dead - that be the mafia or his own generals, who was not pleased by his actions when it come to the Cuban missile crisis and other cases where Kennedy had overturned mighty generals decisions.. He was no friend of the Pentagon - and the generals of the Pentagon was not exactly any friend of Kennedy either... The cold war ended first in 1991 - when USSR dissolved into what it is today - Russia plus 15 new states, who by the way - for the most part is ruled by the old guard who controlled the union republics when Soviet union existed...

Diclotican

[suston96]

10. War Games - the movie - also came out that year.....

Excellent movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

[Pterodactyl]

41. That was an awesome movie!

[24601]

44. Except for the inaccurate premise that NORAD has anything to do with launching nukes. NORAD

assesses aerospace threats (planes & missiles) but has no weapons role, other than interceptors. US Strategic Command (Strategic Air Command in 1983) has command over nukes. So NORAD would evaluate/assess threats which would be reported to the National Command Authority (President & Secretary of Defense). If the President ordered retaliation, that order would go through the Secretary of Defense (passed by an Emergency Action Message by the Joint Staff (OJCS in 1983) to Commander SAC in Omaha.

This arrangement of warning by NORAD and SAC retaliating, by design or by practice, prevented shortcuts and kept the President in command.

The only thing SAC would do based on CINCNORAD say-so would be to get planes airborne for survivability. There were a couple of well-publicized incidents when exercise information spilled over to the live side and SAC burned up a lot of gas getting the planes in the air.

I was assigned in Cheyenne Mountain July 1986 through May 1990.

[okaawhatever]

47. My dad was stationed at SAC 75-80. That's when we had the looking glass planes there. i

always wondered if someone asked one of the pilots what they did for a living they'd say "Oh, I'm going to be the last man on earth". lol

[Selatius]

15. This is a good example of words having power. Too much bellicose rhetoric is a bad deal.

You'll simply lead your adversary to the conclusion you're preparing to launch against him.

A military exercise near the adversary's border could easily be misinterpreted.

[MrModerate]

16. Scary -- and almost certainly not the only incident of its type.

On a pop-culture note, I'm now following (guilty pleasure) the FX series "The Americans," and I wonder if they'll deal with this incident.

[formercia]

28. The really scary part:

I was there during Able Archer 83.

The Soviets, believing that the US had deployed a viable ABM defense, were going to fire everything they had at us to overwhelm it.

We came within less than a minute of a full-scale exchange. The doors were open on their Missile Silos and their bombers, loaded with Nukes were sitting on the runways with engines running, waiting for the order to take off.

Robert Hanssen, the FBI Soviet Mole had given the Continuation of Government Plan (COG) to the Soviets and they were watching the Bunker where Ronnie would go and their orders were to fire everything if he went in. He was on his way there when the Intel Community began getting Overhead and SIGINT that the Soviets were about to push the button. Ronnie was warned as he was ready to go in and the op was canceled.

[Diclotican]

30. formercia

formercia

Oh - that I did not know - how scary it would be.. if it had been the case...

And I guess - the Soviets was believing what they was told, by "other means" that US did had a viable ABM defense - who could defend itself against soviet weapons - something that is the holly grail in many peoples mind - the capability to hit an enemy, without the danger or being hit them self..

If the cold war had going warm that day I guess it would have been a really bad day for everyone... Thankfully it never happened - and the cold war ended a whole different way than most people feared - or dreamed about in the early parts of 1980s...

Diclotican

[LongTomH]

46. Diclotican: Thank you for your insights in this thread.

I've got this thread bookmarked for future research!

Thanks again!

[Diclotican]

49. LongTomH

LongTomH

Thank you - I guess I have something to give to the world then .

Diclotican

[pa28]

45. Yeah, it's scary stuff detailed in the BBC's "Brink of Apocalypse".

The Soviets had become convinced we would attack and a series of unrelated events during the same time nearly caused a nuclear war.

TWA flight 007 was shot down and the Soviet early warning system detected a US first strike which turned out to be reflections from clouds at an unusually high altitude. A Soviet officer decided not to report it because their satellites only indicated a few launches instead of a massive first strike and therefore he believed the alarm was false.

He might have prevented an apocalypse and wound up being sacked for his trouble.

[leveymg]

53. Thanks for that. Here's "Threads" a truly terrifying British version of "The Day After."

[Diclotican]

56. leveymg

leveymg

That movie was not legal in UK, before after the end of the cold war - because the reality of nuclear war was deemed to be to strong for the audience.. And specially as the anti-nuclear lobby in the UK was strong true most of the cold war - and demonstrations against nuclear weapons on board allied or their own ships was strong and supported by many.. Even a "washered down" movie was not put into general public before the late 1980s - and that movie was nothing like this movie here...

Nuclear war, would have been the war, the livings would have had envy for the ones who had been killed - because living was to horrible...

Thankfully, nuclear weapons have not been used yet - in war after 1945 - but as more and more nations get a hand on the nuclear weapons buttons - it is more and more possible that someone down the road - in the near future will use a nuclear weapons in anger.. India-Pakistan Israel-Iran, or against other arabic country's. Not to say DKPR attacking ROK out of ambition of unite the two states - or out of desperation or anger.. And more than 20 other nations, who have one way or another ambition of building a nuclear reactor - and the possibility of nuclear weapons... and most of them unstable un-democratic country where the elite rule by force - and where many, many angry people make it all a cocktail ready to blow up..

I fear - that in the next 10 or 20 years - at least one nuclear weapons would end up in the wrong hands - either by accident - or by purpose - with horrible end result for houndres of thousands of innocent pepoles..

Diclotican