[Spione] What the HELL were these people thinking?

[James_Nostack]

Sometimes, reading about history, I am astonished that the planet still exists.  Specifically talking about Operation Able Archer.  I do not understand the Reagan administration at all.  Some foreign policy Cold War guy, help me out.

I got curious about the state of the Cold War in September 1983.  Apparently the Fall of '83 is considered the most dangerous chance of full-scale nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I apparently lived through this but was too young to know anything.

For background, earlier in the year the United States had announced plans to move Pershing II missiles to West Germany, about 10 minutes flight-time from Moscow, with implementation to take place later in the year.  The USAF was deliberately playing "chicken" with Soviet airspace, deliberately getting as close as humanly possible, apparently as a test of Soviet radar and preparedness.  The US also ran FleetEx, a naval exercise involving the largest armada of naval ships in history, in the North Pacific that summer.

On September 1, 1983, a civilian Korean Airlines Flight 007 strayed off course, flew over some Soviet islands in the Pacific, and--apparently amid total confusion on the Soviet side--got shot down by a MiG fighter, killing 269 civilians.  It is undisputed that there was a CIA spy plane that also invaded Soviet airspace at the exact same time and which in fact crossed flight paths with KAL007.  Reagan's denunciations, and the Soviet response, are both scripted hysterics.

So in that context, in early November 1983, the United States begins Operation Able Archer, which is meant to be a realistic war game simulation of full nuclear war; the heads of state of all major NATO nations participate.  The Soviet Union, diplomatically isolated and freaked out by the Pershings, the Air Force tests, and FleetEx, are apparently convinced that this war game is in fact cover for a nuclear first strike.

W
T
F

From an absolute steel-eyed "let's see what you've got" perspective, this makes sense as a deliberate, intense provocation: let's throw rocks at the hornet's nest and see what happens.

But one thing to keep in mind--and this chills me to the core--is that a whole mess of Cold War "experts" and staff in the Reagan administration ended up in the George W. Bush administration, where it became immediately obvious that these people could not be relied upon to run a children's lemonade stand, much less our nuclear war policy.  (I know there were some normal, sane people around in those days, but just the thought of these other lame brains hanging around at that moment terrifies me.)

What the hell was the point of all this build up?  The revisionist explanation is that Reagan's warmongering was deliberately designed to bankrupt the Soviet planned economy, but (a) come on, (b) seriously come on, and (c) look at these people.

[glandis]

How ... strange/coincidental/typical-of-human-brain-association. The Korean airliner incident came up in discussion just last weekend (we were talking about how electronic warfare should work in a Mekton-inspired game). I guess we can't know if there was any direct coordination between the airliner and the sp-, er, reconnaissance aircraft, but if Occam's Razor and friend-of-a-friend "I saw the radar" claims can be credited, coordination is at least a possibility. At a minimum, the USAF plane was deliberately "ghosting" the airliner to take advantage of the Soviet's perceived reluctance to shoot down a civilian craft.

As far as "why" ... sadly, the political advantage of macho posturing and the financial profitability of military ramp-up may be enough of an explanation. Attributing the "bankrupting" thing (IMO, generally a real-though-overrated factor) to these actions would only make sense if the Soviets increased military spending AFTERWARDS - and they didn't. As strategic policy, the "brilliant!" explanation is that it kept the Soviets focused on the US rather than their own internal/satellite issues, so suppression like what happened with Solidarity became harder to accomplish. Not sure if I buy that as a "they fell into our planned trap" coup either, but it does seem like a real, partial, seen-afterwards factor in the Soviet collapse.

I take some solace in the fact that, at that time, Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz et al were "the crazies" even to their fellow Republicans. Why W turned to them rather than, say, his father invites (along with shudders of horror) Greek and/or Shakespearean commentary ... not that H W would necessarily have provided brilliance, but he did refrain from attacking/occupying Iraqi territory once before.

[Ron Edwards]

Sorry not to get to this earlier. As a highly-politicized teen who graduated from high school in 1983, this stuff was a daily, completely overwhelming thing to me and to all of us. I'm not sure I can even comment on it without getting flashbacks I don't want.

[glandis]

One of my closest friends in high school (born at the very end of '63, I graduated in '81) ended up deployed to Europe with Reagan's nukes. Reconciling that was ... hard. I can see why Ron would want to avoid this stuff.

That said - James, was what I offered at all useful? If there's a specific I missed (and can help with - no guarantee), Ron can just ... blur his eyes, or somethin'.