SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (421325)10/1/2008 1:15:34 PM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1576633
 
Anyway, comments like "Reagan never intended to 'win' the Cold War" screams out to me, "It all depends on what your definition of 'win' is."

Well, we know some people define things to suit their political agendas.

But this is absolutely inarguable at this point by anyone who cares to tackle the subject. When Reagan arrived in DC the top agenda item became one of rewriting the nation's policy with respect to the Cold War -- and to change it from containment to winning. And contrary to Z's argument, every bit of information on the subject not only suggests, but clearly sets out, that Reagan believed the way to do it was through taking advantage of the weak Soviet economy and the fact they could not endure a military buildup.

SDI was a critical component -- one which had its roots, again, in the early-60s, after Edward Teller suggested the concept to him. SDI was not someone else's idea -- Reagan pushed his staff to pursue it, and they did a lot of work up front to determine whether it was a feasible project. Teller was pushing a solution that involved using nuclear detonations to destroy incoming missiles, and Reagan refused to consider it solely because the idea was to REDUCE nuclear proliferation, NOT to increase it (an absolute stroke of genius).

It is typical partisanship to refuse to give the greatest president of the last century credit for what he accomplished in this respect.