Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (56319)	9/27/1999 11:49:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Fair enough....here it is, then: The Soviets were spreading their influence into Afghanistan, and acting as patrons of Iraq, which was reasonably considered to be a threat to Middle Eastern oil. They were also expanding in the Caribbean and Central America. But most importantly, they were making substantial in- roads in Europe, encouraging a huge neutralist movement, and eroding our defensive posture. You must understand that the Warsaw Pact was in an offensive posture in Europe, and NATO conventional forces were pretty minimal, on balance. We beat them on technology and readiness, and we also had the existential threat of "plausible escalation". Thus, if they threatened us with theater nukes, we had theater nukes to retaliate, which was more credible than supposing that we would authorize a full strike. Anyway, it was necessary to counter the strategic erosion in other parts of the world, and specifically to counter neutralism and show that we could maintain the credibility of our defense commitments, for example by placing the SS- 20s. Finally, the overall strategy was to put pressure on the Soviet Union, through the technological threat of the Strategic Defense Initiative, to force real change in the regime, as finally occurred.....