Reagan admin ‘hyped Soviet failures into threats.’

[mrjarrell]

Bush had his "weapons of mass destruction" that allowed him to get his way and Reagan did, too, it turns out. According to recently released National Security Archive documents he and his administration dramatically overplayed Soviet scientific advancements in order to get more money for the military industrial complex. Ron's deficit spending set the stage for later administrations to do the same and start us on the path that we're currently on. So much for conservatism.

via Raw Story

In its efforts to keep Congress funding huge military budgets in the 1980s, the Reagan administration exaggerated the threat from the Soviet Union's military projects, newly published documents show.
Documents posted online Thursday at the National Security Archives chronicle a Soviet physicist's efforts to dispel claims about the USSR's secretive weapons programs by bringing US officials to Russia to examine top-secret weapons sites.
Those tours, which took place around 1987, "showed that the Reagan administration had exaggerated Soviet capabilities and also that the Soviet military machine was not as technologically advanced as had been thought," the National Security Archives stated in a press release.
Those documents were first brought to light in a recent book by David E. Hoffman, The Dead Hand. The book chronicles the Soviet effort to build a system for an "automatic retaliatory nuclear strike on the United States."
But, as the released documents show, that effort, as well as other weapons programs, were never near fruition. The National Security Archives states:

The Pentagon published a glossy annual booklet, Soviet Military Power, a propaganda piece designed to help boost congressional support for Reagan’s military spending. The fourth edition, published in April, 1985, contained the claim that the Soviets had “two ground-based lasers that are capable of attacking satellites in various orbits.”
In Soviet Military Power, the Pentagon included an artists’ conception, a black-and-white pencil sketch, showing what purported to be the Saryshagan proving ground. A building with a dome on top was shown firing a white laser beam into the heavens [see picture above].
​

"In fact, the long, expensive search to build laser weapons against targets in space had, up to this point, totally fizzled," the Archives press release states. "The Soviets had not given up hope, but the glossy Pentagon booklet took old failures and hyped them into new threats."

Read the rest at the source.

 

[Prometheus]

For a man who quintupled our national debt, signed off on some of the most oppressive gun control legislation we've ever had (among other things) I can't understand why so many people worship him.

Better than many before him and since, but that's not saying much.

 

[JBusch8899]

For a man who quintupled our national debt, signed off on some of the most oppressive gun control legislation we've ever had (among other things) I can't understand why so many people worship him.

Better than many before him and since, but that's not saying much.

He was a politician, and demonstrated a fair amount of grandfatherly charisma in that role.

He's regarded for ending the cold war and quelling the fears of the American people of their fear of the Soviet menace. His manner in which he disagreed, without being disagreeable, personified his role as president. He redirected a moral compass for America, that many thought was lost. He reinvigorated the national defense, so lacking under his predecessor.

Yeah, he had his flaws. Is this country better off now because of him? An unqualified, "Yes".

 

[dleeharrison]

The Reagan Administration was not the only one who hyped the Soviet Threat. The hype went back to the late 40's through the 80's. First it was the conventional forces gap in europe, then the bomber gap followed by the missile gap which were hyped by both republican and democrat administrations.

Reagan took a moribund military and turned it around with a sense of purpose with new and updated equipment and weapon systems. The military was saddled with the Carter administration and a decade long war in Vietnam. Vietnam nearly destroyed both the Army and Marine Corps as I can attest since I was a part of the army in Vietnam. Vietnam was the legacy of the domino theory which was another hype. Vietnam was a civil war that had its roots back to the end of world war II when the french reoccupied southeast asia.

 

[IndyBeerman]

For a man who quintupled our national debt, signed off on some of the most oppressive gun control legislation we've ever had (among other things) I can't understand why so many people worship him.

Better than many before him and since, but that's not saying much.

No offense Prometheus but you was a whopping 2 years old when Reagan was elected office, and 10 years old when he left.

I'd take Reagan any day over Carter because Carter was running this country right into the ground, had demoralized our military and was responsible for some of the worst inflation this country has ever had.

He brought respect back to the country from both a citizens and foreigners viewpoint and rouge nations feared him because they knew he meant business.

Carter is Obama Ver. 1.0 without the desire to socialize the country.
I guess you would prefer us to have had another 4 years of Carter?

 

[Bigum1969]

No offense Prometheus but you was a whopping 2 years old when Reagan was elected office, and 10 years old when he left.

I'd take Reagan any day over Carter because Carter was running this country right into the ground, had demoralized our military and was responsible for some of the worst inflation this country has ever had.

He brought respect back to the country from both a citizens and foreigners viewpoint and rouge nations feared him because they knew he meant business.

Carter is Obama Ver. 1.0 without the desire to socialize the country.
I guess you would prefer us to have had another 4 years of Carter?

Historical revision continues.

 

[E5RANGER375]

we should have just listened to GENERAL PATTON and invaded Russia at the end of WWII and we wouldnt even be talking about Russia, China, Vietnam, or Korea, today.

 

[MTC]

A reader might want want to check the "about" section of that link with a critical eye.
It's not a matter of irrelevant hype, and it's not that he's worshipped.
Reagan was, and still is, despised by the enemies of my country, both foreign and domestic, mainly because, unlike the communist-coddling peanut brain who preceded him in office, he implemented policies that caused the disintegration of their beloved soviet union. I still remember the scorn, contempt and vitriolic hatred spewed about him by the media and academia. The more they hated him, the more I liked him.

You should have heard them wet their panties over this:

YouTube - Reagan Bombing Joke

 

[JR50]

OK, boys and girls, learn this lesson: MTC is correct!

RWR was vilified for the media-termed 'star wars' plan. Yet, that very plan -- just the notion of the plan -- helped bring the Soviet Union to its knees. The reason? The Soviets had an unsustainable economy and the additional spending to counter 'star wars' was part of the tipping point for their rotten system. That's one small detail. If you don't remember the era, research it using credible sources.

 

[E5RANGER375]

REAGAN, was a true statesman and patriot. He lead this country instead of bending over to the media, which is what every president since him has done. Rest in Peace Sir

 

[CarmelHP]

No offense Prometheus but you was a whopping 2 years old when Reagan was elected office, and 10 years old when he left.

We have bunches of history "experts" with 20/20 hindsight on here.

 

[LEaSH]

One thing is not debatable: his administration set into motion this insane deficit spending that continues to be abused by every administration that has followed.
What is debatable is if it really was decisive in deflating the USSR's stronghold on the satellite nations.

Look, my grandmother was czech. She came here before WW2. She very much kept in touch with all her family and friends for nearly 50 years after.
One thing that the communists couldn't sensor was the disdain the common people had for the leadership in their country. And the disdain grew more and more. Until countries like Czechloslavakia and Hungary stopped producing and contributing to the USSR's coffers. They weighed the USSR down enough to get themselves cut free of the influence of the USSR. Communism doesn't work forever. (Unless you're China).
Russia still exists. We all know this very well. They had to jettison the satellites.

3 things:
1)Will of the people.
2)Religious influence.
3)And the basic math that Russia knew it had to trim the fat.

It's like having twelve Israels to fund and pacify with 'aid'. We couldn't do it either.

Reagan and Thatcher politicized a non existent victory. It was all a nice show. They just happened to be bit parts in that play.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Wait. So you have to have been a legal-voter age to criticize a former President's activity? That would seem to be the classic straw-man argument. It ignores the issues and the history. I wasn't alive when Romans were feeding Christians to the lions but I do know that it was wrong.

Republicans Against Firearms:

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

I was either non-existent or very young when these things happened and all of them are garbage.

I don't know about you, but I don't want another 'Reagan' in office. Could our firearms rights withstand it?

Remember what took effect on May 16 of 1986? Coming to a semi-auto rifle/handgun near you if the American people keep electing these bozos into office.

There was an older IT term called GIGO that was popular... garbage in, garbage out... It applies to politicians. You elect in and laws are the outcome. George Fuechsel was right!

 

[MTC]

One thing is not debatable: his administration set into motion this insane deficit spending that continues to be abused by every administration that has followed.

Debates over economic and fiscal policy of a given administration are topics for other threads and happen here and everywhere else on a regular basis. Not trying to perpetuate that but add a few remarks, mainly for younger readers, to help explain why Reagan is highly regarded by many, criticism of various policies, votes and decisions notwithstanding.

What is debatable is if it really was decisive in deflating the USSR's stronghold on the satellite nations.

At least this is more on topic. Yeah, I've seen the debates, and if someone already has his mind made up, that is OK. So do I. Maybe the goal (not without financial risk) was more than just 'deflating the USSR's stronghold on the satellite nations'. The topic, as I understand it, is the charge that the Reagan admin hyped the soviet threat (to justify more defense spending). Although not worded the same, it falls in the same category as so many others before. Reworded, and depending on the author or source, the underlying message goes something like this (based on numerous newspaper and magazine articles seen at the time):
"Warmonger!"
"Madman with his finger on the nuclear trigger!"
"Oh, he's just red-baiting. That's so 1950s."
"...portraying those peaceful soviets as the boogeyman to financially benefit big business and the defense industries."
"Build up, in order to tear down?" -- translation from a major German publication ridiculing the increased manufacture and deployment of missiles in order to have a bargaining chip before entering into arms reduction negotiations with the soviets, who at that time had us outnumbered in some categories on the order of 10-1.
"Insanity."
"He's gonna provoke them and get us all killed."

Depending on your point of view, (and who's side you're on) it was large portions of the media, the opposing political party, and faculty members doing the hand-wringing and fear-mongering.

Until countries like Czechloslavakia and Hungary stopped producing and contributing to the USSR's coffers. They weighed the USSR down enough to get themselves cut free of the influence of the USSR.

This is more of the oft-repeated "USSR would have collapsed anyway" theory much easier advanced in hindsight - after the fact - to criticize defense spending in general.

Communism doesn't work forever. (Unless you're China).

Leaving aside whether it ever "worked" in the first place, or should even be tried, what we have seen, unfortunately, is that communism, i.e. international socialism can be successfully marketed in the USA, as long as it is cleverly repackaged and not called what it really is.

Russia still exists.

As a national unit, not as part of an integrated communist empire.

They had to jettison the satellites.

If by jettison, you mean physically pull their military forces and equipment in addition to certain governmental units, it certainly didn't look at the time like they were going to leave on their own. Maybe they needed a little "help".

Reagan and Thatcher politicized a non existent victory. It was all a nice show. They just happened to be bit parts in that play.

Interestingly enough, in informal discussions with friends I've been known to take the position of *who really won the Cold War?* on the grounds of communist infiltration of key institutions, seeded and developed over decades.

Wait. So you have to have been a legal-voter age to criticize a former President's activity?

No. You're fine, however, how someone chooses to frame his criticism often reveals much about his influences and sources of information.
By all means, vote for whoever you want, based on whatever is most important to you.
The track record of a particular politician or administration on gun control is a topic for another thread.

 

[Prometheus]

No offense Prometheus but you was a whopping 2 years old when Reagan was elected office, and 10 years old when he left.

I'd take Reagan any day over Carter because Carter was running this country right into the ground, had demoralized our military and was responsible for some of the worst inflation this country has ever had.

He brought respect back to the country from both a citizens and foreigners viewpoint and rouge nations feared him because they knew he meant business.

Carter is Obama Ver. 1.0 without the desire to socialize the country.
I guess you would prefer us to have had another 4 years of Carter?

Lol, I wasn't quite that young.

I also said he was better than carter, again that isn't saying much.

As a realist I can say that, yes, he was better than Carter... then again so was Clinton. As a person who swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (as he did), I can also say he violated that Oath on several occasions and was no "hero", let alone worthy of all this idol worship that we see. I won't apologize for taking a little thing called the Constitution seriously.

You can spin it however you like, the facts of his administration speak for themselves. Set the bar low by comparing him to people like Jimmy C and Barry O if thats what it takes to keep him as your idol. Put his actions solely to a Constitutional test, then see how great he looks.

"It's usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." - Thomas Sowell

 

[IndyBeerman]

Lol, I wasn't quite that young.

Well your profile says your age as 32, so that puts you being born in 78'

I also said he was better than carter, again that isn't saying much.

I was 14 years old when Carter became president and still not interested in politics and was not until the fall of my senior year when I had civics class. But I can remember what the 4 years of Carter was like compared to Reagan, and I'd like to think it was a way better time compared to Carters 4 years.

As a realist I can say that, yes, he was better than Carter... then again so was Clinton. As a person who swore an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (as he did), I can also say he violated that Oath on several occasions and was no "hero", let alone worthy of all this idol worship that we see. I won't apologize for taking a little thing called the Constitution seriously.

I can honestly say in my opinion that almost any sitting president was better than Carter, and that in any given point during a presidents career they will violate the Constitution more than once be it accidental or on purpose.

While I have never proclaimed Reagan as a "Hero" he did right the ship at a troubled time and fixed problems that Carter created, one of them being the military. It would not have needed so much of a buildup if Carter had not torn it down. The protection of the U.S. is nothing to be taken lightly, and not a thing to be considered as part of a "value meal deal" by throwing a dollar in the general direction thing.

You can spin it however you like, the facts of his administration speak for themselves. Set the bar low by comparing him to people like Jimmy C and Barry O if thats what it takes to keep him as your idol. Put his actions solely to a Constitutional test, then see how great he looks.

Reagan has never been my "Idol", I do not bow down to any president, but if I had a choice to stand beside a president , salute a president, and shake the hand of a president, there would be two.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are those men.

 

[JBusch8899]

.....Reagan has never been my "Idol", I do not bow down to any president, but if I had a choice to stand beside a president , salute a president, and shake the hand of a president, there would be two.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are those men.

You might wish to study Lincoln more.

reason.tv - Videos > Napolitano at Reason in DC

 

[CarmelHP]

Wait. So you have to have been a legal-voter age to criticize a former President's activity? That would seem to be the classic straw-man argument. It ignores the issues and the history. I wasn't alive when Romans were feeding Christians to the lions but I do know that it was wrong.

It means that you should know more about it that some slanted presentation that you picked up somewhere from someone with an ax to grind who is counting on your ignorance of the events to prevent you from a critical analysis. And yes, eyewitness testimony is superior to hearsay.

"It's usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance." - Thomas Sowell

The irony literally drips!

 

[JBusch8899]

We have bunches of history "experts" with 20/20 hindsight on here.

The subject of Reagan's legacy will be debated for years to come. Please don't make too many enemies over the subject.

I don't consider myself an "expert" upon the subject of history, but I do consider myself well read upon a number of subjects that address multiple sides of a number of issues. I've also been around long enough to know that when one asks a group of people a stated question, one is likely to receive a different answer from each person.

Don't take this wrong, but you're pretty heavy handed upon individuals that disagree with your opinion. If its due to their arbitrary and intended ignorance, then they receive what they deserve. However, sometimes just a bit of qualified information is all that is required to motivate a person to explore a bit deeper upon a given subject.

There is also a degree of individual and a cultural aspect to consider when opinions differ. Reagan said it best when he stated, "One can disagree, without being disagreeable."