[rdtsc]

A few links:

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/28/cia-documents-us-drastica...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

Also a quote from senator senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Raymond Garthoff, a C.I.A. military analyst, from early 2000s "there were consistent overestimates of the threat every year from 1978 to 1985."

Even without this it is possibly just to look at the rhetoric and the push for an accelerated arms race, spending on the Star Wars programs. Just looking back at was found on the other side, its economy, rusting machinery, terrible inefficiency, military machines running on vacuum tubes. Was that threat level warranted? No, there was no equivalent threat on the other side to justify it.

[tptacek]

The belief that the Cold War was ineptly prosecuted, or that military spending during the Cold War was inefficient (or even corrupt) is distinct from the belief that nuclear war wasn't a realistic threat.

I'm actually having a hard time understanding the notion that nuclear war wasn't a realistic threat. We "overestimated" the Soviet capability, but all estimates available were so far past the margin of global catastrophe that they're not really relevant.

Again: if you want to construct an argument that politically-motivated overestimations of the Soviet nuclear arsenal were used to drive spending to profit contractors: sure. But it does not follow that nuclear war was off the table!

[steven2012]

Of course you're having a hard time understanding it. It's because you've been so brainwashed as a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s (just like me), believing that the Soviet Union was the "Evil Empire", and that they were so freaking evil, that they would destroy themselves just so that they could take down the US.

In fact, the Soviet Union was made up of people who loved their friends and family and didn't want to destroy the world, just like Americans. And they were no more willing to start nuclear war than Americans were. And given the fact that there was completely Mutually Assured Destruction, there was no point for the Soviet Union to ever launch a nuclear strike.

So, sure, there was always the possibility of nuclear war, just like there is currently the possibility of a nuclear war against China, or India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc. But it's not nearly as likely as we were brainwashed to believe as kids.

Instead, Reagan used this as a tool to increase support for a build-up of nuclear weapons, to increase military spending, and ultimately turned the US from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor. Some might say that he saved the world from the Soviet Union by crippling them financially by goading them into an arms race that they couldn't win financially. But it was definitely on the heels of a massive propaganda campaign that none of us realized, until you actually compare notes with people who lives in the Soviet Union at the time, and understand the actually threat levels.

[rdtsc]

> Again: if you want to construct an argument that politically-motivated overestimations of the Soviet nuclear arsenal were used to drive spending to profit contractors: sure. But it does not follow that nuclear war was off the table!

My argument was about a matter of degree. I didn't mean to say the nuclear war was off the table. But we now know that neither side was really ready to launch. It should have been the job of the intelligence agencies to correctly assess that but they didn't.

Then someone else took that and ran with it without double checking and added on a heavy layer of propaganda about evil empire and how communists were about to destroy the free world and so on.

As an addendum, as a good indication the Soviets were never going to attack first, was that they built Периметр (Perimeter) -- their dead hand device. They did that because they thought Americans would launch first. And if that happened the wanted to have a second strike (retaliatory) capability. If they were the evil empire and always wanted to attack first (like the Americans believed) they would have no incentive to build that system.

[tptacek]

I guess I'm not seeing how game theory doesn't day both sides want a "dead hand" device. It's a commitment scheme.

[rdtsc]

It seems they would have a lot less incentive to do so if they were planning on attacking first. But thinking about it, that logic seems flawed since if they were planning to attack, they couldn't be 100% sure to destroy the ability for a retaliatory attack, so second strike ability was needed anyway. Ok, never mind then, you are right.