I guess the gap between us is as well illustrated with this as any other phrase:Tipping the balance was an illusion and I think that everyone in the business knew it. Then you go on to say that it was more political than military, without specifying what the political significance might be. Well, let's see: the intimidation of the electorates of NATO countries, and fear of loss of the United States's presumed nuclear shield, with the heightened possibility of the use of nukes in Western Europe. The introduction of our own intermediate range missiles ensured that we considered our fate tied to that of our allies, and would not sit out exchanges between the Soviet Union and our nuclear allies (Britain and France). So sure,it was more "political than military", but with strategic significance, since the Finlandization of Western Europe was a very real concern at the time.
Not being expert, I cannot estimate the particular danger from trade in nuclear contraband or the recruitment of unemployed nuclear engineers. Perhaps you are right, and those employed to consider such risks have no case when they promote SDI. If I were more cynical, I might find the thesis that it is an obvious waste plausible, and we could move on to cognac and a good cigar......... |
