Veteran journalist and author
Joseph C. Goulden offers a good review in the Washington Times of Taylor Downing's 1983: Reagan, Andropov, and a World on the Brink.
Will historians ever
acknowledge that the atomic bomb, despite its horrors, stands as the most
effective anti-war weapon in history?
The last worldwide conflict
ended in 1945. The ensuing years, to be sure, were marred by conflicts of
varying intensity — Korea and Vietnam, to name two. But for 73 years, the world
has avoided a major-powers conflict of the magnitude that bloodied Europe for
centuries.
The most significant
stand-off of the era was the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet
Union, with a mutual antipathy and exchange of threats that could have resulted
in nuclear disaster.
One particularly frightening
flash point came in 1983, when events on both sides caused the adversaries to
veer toward a showdown that author Taylor Downing, a veteran British TV
producer, likens to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
But there was a significant
difference. The showdown over Cuba was carried out publicly, with detailed
media attention as American forces were mobilized because of Soviet
installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba.
But the severity of the 1983
confrontation, with several exceptions, was known only to a handful of military
and intelligence officials.
Both adversaries realized
that any conflict carried serious consequence. President Eisenhower’s declared
policy was “massive retaliation.” Under Ronald Reagan, the catch words were
“mutual assured destruction” — MAD, in defense lingo. Mr. Reagan came into
office in 198l as a hard-line anti-communist. He began strengthening U.S.
weapons systems. Nonetheless, he sent friendly handwritten notes to Leonid
Brezhnev, who then ruled the USSR, urging the relaxation of tensions beginning
with the release of political prisoners. Mr. Brezhnev sent back “an icy reply.”
Yuri Andropov, Mr. Brezhnev’s
successor, had established his own tough credentials as head of the KGB. The
Reagan build-up caused fears that the U.S. would use its superiority to wipe
out the Soviet political leadership.
The Soviets began developing
powerful new missiles. They also strongly backed proxy “revolutionaries” in
locales ranging from Central America to Angola.
Yet despite his rhetoric, one
of Mr. Reagan’s first overtures was a proposal to cut nuclear arsenals by 33
percent — a move Moscow rejected. (In retirement, Mr. Reagan would call MAD
“the craziest thing I ever heard of.”)
But relations were uneasy
from the start.
Communication glitches resulted in both the U.S. and the USSR receiving false (and quickly discounted) reports of incoming missiles — errors that contributed to mutual jitters. In both instances, preemptive counterstrikes were barely avoided.
Communication glitches resulted in both the U.S. and the USSR receiving false (and quickly discounted) reports of incoming missiles — errors that contributed to mutual jitters. In both instances, preemptive counterstrikes were barely avoided.
Then the Soviets shot down a
South Korean airliner that had strayed off course on a flight from Alaska to
Seoul, killing 269 persons. The Soviets claimed to have mistaken the commercial
aircraft for an American reconnaissance plane. Mr. Reagan denounced the attack
as a “crime against humanity.”
As they watched Mr. Reagan’s
military buildup, Soviet officers became convinced that what they called “the
correlation of world forces” was turning against them. As a psychological warfare
tactic, U.S. air and naval probes tested Soviet borders.
Mr. Downing contends that
officials in the Reagan administration did not understand the depth of Soviet
fears. He ignores a CIA analysis at the time describing Soviet leaders as
“pedestrian, isolated and self-absorbed paranoid and fearful of their own
people and of a world they believed [was] relentlessly hostile and
threatening.” They feared a repetition of the June 1941 German invasion that
almost destroyed the USSR.
You can read the rest of the
review via the below link:
No comments:
Post a Comment