Abstract
On 7 December 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan signed the INF Treaty at the White House in Washington, eliminating with a flourish the weapons which had exemplified the peaks and valleys of East-West relations during the 1980s. Weakened by Iran-Contra and leading a lame-duck administration, President Reagan looked increasingly to foreign policy, and improved relations with Moscow, to redeem his reputation. Radical and unexpected Soviet foreign policy initiatives, like the decision in principle to leave Afghanistan and the unilateral withdrawal of forces from Eastern Europe, announced at the United Nations in December 1988, were meeting longstanding American objectives and rewarding Reagan’s interpretation of an ever less threatening Soviet Union. Indeed Gorbachev’s ability to turn a fundamentally weak political position into continual international diplomatic triumphs flummoxed those in Washington who believed Reagan was becoming too friendly with Gorbachev and naive toward Moscow. Critics saw Reagan and Gorbachev walk arm in arm through Moscow’s Red Square in the summer of 1988, ruminate on the benefits of radical strategic nuclear reductions in START, and grew nervous. Was the Cold War really over?
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Margaret Thatcher, from unpublished interview with the The Financial Times, quoted by Anthony Bevins, ‘Thatcher Plans Tactical Nuclear Weapons Review’, The Independent, 30 November 1987
Nicholas Wood and Robin Oakley, ‘Cruise Missile May Go into UK Bombers’, The Times, 14 December 1987
Peter Pringle, ‘UK Offers to Take More US Jets When Missiles are Gone’, The Independent, 17 December 1987.
This conclusion parallels that in Susanne Peters, ‘The Germans and the INF Treaty: Ostrich Policy Towards an Unresolvable Strategic Dilemma’, Arms Control, 10:1, May 1989, p. 36.
CSU leader Strauss told the Wehrkunde conference flatly that the Bundestag would not support SNF modernization and complained of the lack of constancy in US policy. Alfred Dregger also argued that fickle American arms control policy had confused the German public and left the Bonn government looking ridiculous at times. See James M. Markham, ‘Bonn Angst on Missiles’, New York Times, 10 February 1988.
Fred Iklé, Albert Wohlstetter, et al., Discriminate Deterrence: Report of The Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (Washington, DC: US GPO, January 1988).
The German translation said that nuclear forces would be maintained at ‘a required level’, John Eisenhammer and Mark Urban, ‘NATO Papers Over Cracks on Nuclear Forces’, The Independent, 4 March 1988.
Mark Urban, ‘US Pressing Ahead with Plans for New Nuclear Missile’, The Independent, 29 October 1988.
Nuclear Planning Group communiqué, 27–8 October 1988, Scheveningen, The Hague. For meeting summaries see
David Fouquet, ‘Call for United Nuclear Policy’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 5 November 1988
David Fouquet, NATO Report, ‘Routine NPG Stumbles on New Belgian Nuclear Opposition’, 1 November 1988
David Fouquet, Atlantic News, 29 November 1988
Edward Cody, ‘Belgians Toss NATO A Curve’, The Washington Post, 28 November 1988, p. 26.
For reports see David Marsh, ‘Gorbachev in Arms Talks Warning to Bonn’, The Financial Times, 24 October 1988
David Marsh, ‘Chancellor’s Speech in the Kremlin’, Report from the Federal Republic of Germany, 2 November 1988.
For a summary in the context of the changes in Soviet foreign and defense policy see: Elaine Holoboff, The Soviet Concept of Reasonable Sufficiency: Conventional Arms Control in an Era of Transition, Working Paper No. 29 (Ottawa: Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, October 1990).
See also: Department of the Army United States Military Intelligence and Threat Analysis Center, ‘The Soviet Strategy Debate: Striving for Reasonable Sufficiency’, 19 August 1988.
Robert J. McCartney, ‘Soviets to Cut Some Tactical Nuclear Arms in Central Europe’, International Herald Tribune, 20 January 1989
John Bulloch and John Eisenhammer, ‘Moscow to Cut Nuclear Arms in Eastern Europe’, The Independent, 20 January 1989
Barry James, ‘West German Opinion May Be Soviet Target’, International Herald Tribune, 20 January 1989
David White, ‘Shevardnadze Makes Life More Difficult for NATO’, The Financial Times, 20 January 1989
Mark Urban, ‘Scrapping Missiles is Mainly a Gesture’, The Independent, 20 January 1989
David Goodhart, ‘Soviet Cut Given Guarded Welcome by NATO Chief’, The Financial Times, 21 January 1989.
_Interviews, Sir George Younger, Peter Corterier. See also David Goodhart, ‘The strains on the ties that bind’, The Financial Times, 30 January 1989, p. 13. Many of NATO’s training areas were in CDU areas, which particularly hurt Kohl.
‘It doesn’t interest me at all if others see this (SNF modernization) as a sort of litmus test. I have to represent German interests, and I am a reliable partner.’ Robert J. McCartney, ‘Kohl Surprises Allies with Call for Missile Delay’, International Herald Tribune, 11–12 February 1989, p. 1.
Don Oberdorfer, ‘Baker Hints US May Ease Stand on Missile Talks’, International Herald Tribune, 18–19 February 1989.
Cited in Serge Schmemann, ‘West German President Upholds Assertive Stance’, New York Times, 25 May 1989.
David S. Yost, ‘Western Nuclear Force Structures’, in Beatrice Heuser (ed.), Nuclear Weapons and the Future of European Security (London: Brassey’s, October 1991), p. 27.
Copyright information
© 1995 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halverson, T.E. (1995). The Last Great Nuclear Debate. In: The Last Great Nuclear Debate. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377882_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377882_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39325-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37788-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)