Skip to main content

The Last Great Nuclear Debate

  • Chapter
The Last Great Nuclear Debate
  • 22 Accesses

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?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Margaret Thatcher, from unpublished interview with the The Financial Times, quoted by Anthony Bevins, ‘Thatcher Plans Tactical Nuclear Weapons Review’, The Independent, 30 November 1987

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nicholas Wood and Robin Oakley, ‘Cruise Missile May Go into UK Bombers’, The Times, 14 December 1987

    Google Scholar 

  3. Peter Pringle, ‘UK Offers to Take More US Jets When Missiles are Gone’, The Independent, 17 December 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fred Iklé, Albert Wohlstetter, et al., Discriminate Deterrence: Report of The Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (Washington, DC: US GPO, January 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mark Urban, ‘US Pressing Ahead with Plans for New Nuclear Missile’, The Independent, 29 October 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nuclear Planning Group communiqué, 27–8 October 1988, Scheveningen, The Hague. For meeting summaries see

    Google Scholar 

  10. David Fouquet, ‘Call for United Nuclear Policy’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 5 November 1988

    Google Scholar 

  11. David Fouquet, NATO Report, ‘Routine NPG Stumbles on New Belgian Nuclear Opposition’, 1 November 1988

    Google Scholar 

  12. David Fouquet, Atlantic News, 29 November 1988

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edward Cody, ‘Belgians Toss NATO A Curve’, The Washington Post, 28 November 1988, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  14. For reports see David Marsh, ‘Gorbachev in Arms Talks Warning to Bonn’, The Financial Times, 24 October 1988

    Google Scholar 

  15. David Marsh, ‘Chancellor’s Speech in the Kremlin’, Report from the Federal Republic of Germany, 2 November 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Robert J. McCartney, ‘Soviets to Cut Some Tactical Nuclear Arms in Central Europe’, International Herald Tribune, 20 January 1989

    Google Scholar 

  19. John Bulloch and John Eisenhammer, ‘Moscow to Cut Nuclear Arms in Eastern Europe’, The Independent, 20 January 1989

    Google Scholar 

  20. Barry James, ‘West German Opinion May Be Soviet Target’, International Herald Tribune, 20 January 1989

    Google Scholar 

  21. David White, ‘Shevardnadze Makes Life More Difficult for NATO’, The Financial Times, 20 January 1989

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mark Urban, ‘Scrapping Missiles is Mainly a Gesture’, The Independent, 20 January 1989

    Google Scholar 

  23. David Goodhart, ‘Soviet Cut Given Guarded Welcome by NATO Chief’, The Financial Times, 21 January 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  24. _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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. ‘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.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Don Oberdorfer, ‘Baker Hints US May Ease Stand on Missile Talks’, International Herald Tribune, 18–19 February 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cited in Serge Schmemann, ‘West German President Upholds Assertive Stance’, New York Times, 25 May 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics