A Newly Declassified CIA Paper Details A Tense Subplot In The Cold War Arms Race

I did a search and couldn't find it. Not even sure if I put this in the right forum.....But here you go.

Full article here.

A recently declassified paper from Studies in Intelligence, the CIA's internal journal, looks at how Moscow reacted to US missile defense efforts during the Cold War and the decade or so following the breakup of the Soviet Union. The paper's author, whose name is redacted, found that the Soviets, and then Russia, were desperate to undercut the advantages of a future US missile defense system — an objective that led them to act in potentially destabilizing ways. The paper's publication date is redacted as well, but it includes a quotation from Russian President Vladimir Putin from 2000, so it must have been written after that date.

In the early 1980s, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a centerpiece of Ronald Reagan's defense policy. It would have relied upon technologies that are still unproven, like space-based Star Wars missile interceptors. The Soviets were worried about what such a tilt in the balance of global power could mean for them.

"In response to SDI, Moscow threatened a variety of military countermeasures in lieu of developing a parallel missile defense system," the paper states.

Moscow wanted to improve its negotiating position with the US in order to force Washington to suspend the project. And according to the paper, Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov considered several options for countering SDI, like "increasing the number of missiles, reinforcing missile silos to increase their survivability, using decoys on missiles to make intercepts more difficult," and "developing and deploying an underwater missile that would not be affected by the space-based missile shield."

Link to PDF HERE But in typical government fashion all the naughty bits are blocked out. View while you can before it changes and/or is removed.

It sucks that parts are edited

This is where certain pacifist opinions have screwed us
we dont need arms reduction at all

The only ones with reduced arms are any nations with the potential to threaten us

edit:
unless you can tell me why we should be disarmed

a reply to: blackcatmagic

Interesting liked reading the qoutes in the pdf when i clicked the link it started to download, so for those who are weary of downloading stuff off the internet maybe someone could put theses slides on an image hosting site for all to see without downloading. From reading this it seem russia was kind of scared of the defence systems being developed.

Offtopic the site foio.cia/gov if i went there could i download more declassifeid report on what ever topic i want? Sorry about grammer and spelling on my phone.

a reply to: Xcombiyax

Weird...... I didn't get that. Maybe it's the settings on your phone?? I just clicked the link from the yahoo news article. Maybe try clinking the link in the article and see if you get the same results?? I don't know what to tell you. I'm not very tech savvy.

a reply to: blackcatmagic

If Russia has indeed successfully developed new ICBMs which can evade the missile defense systems it can lead to bad miscalculations.

But if so, US knows about it them, and the only need of deploying them is for none other than profits.

Russia's hypersonic trump card edges closer to reality

By the end of this year, Moscow will test its newest ballistic missile, the RS-26 Rubezh (which means frontier in Russian) equipped with hypersonic maneuvering nuclear units. As Colonel General Vladimir Zarudnitsky, chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, said to Vladimir Putin, this system will significantly expand the ability of Russian strategic nuclear forces to overcome missile defense systems. The technical specifications of the new missile have not been disclosed. However, public recognition of the fact that it has “hypersonic maneuvering nuclear units” indicates it is an ultimate weapon.

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Interesting. If they can figure out how to protect the guidance system it would be a definite game changer.

a reply to: ripcontrol

Sure. Because the entire world can be genocided with modern weapons in less than 2 hours? Hence, certain treaties with the goal to reduce it as such?

I'm so sick of the war mongering attitude of my nation. I'm done supporting this garbage. Their is more to life than endless war. What a waste of humanities time and resources. Trillions wasted. More trillions scheduled to be wasted. Sad.

Yet, if you need water? See, Detroit.

When can we start the war against war itself?

a reply to: Not Authorized

Did you NOT read the PDF

I have to assume the answer is no
Read the russian aims

let me help you out because obviously you are clueless

Art of war

The Art of War (Chinese: 孫子兵法; pinyin: Sūnzĭ bīngfǎ) is an ancient Chinese military treatise attributed to Sun Tzu, a high-ranking military general, strategist and tactician. The text is composed of 13 chapters, each of which is devoted to one aspect of warfare. It is commonly known to be the definitive work on military strategy and tactics of its time. It has been the most famous and influential of China's Seven Military Classics, and "for the last two thousand years it remained the most important military treatise in Asia, where even the common people knew it by name."[1] It has had an influence on Eastern and Western military thinking, business tactics, legal strategy and beyond.

The book was first translated into the French language in 1772 by French Jesuit Jean Joseph Marie Amiot and a partial translation into English was attempted by British officer Everard Ferguson Calthrop in 1905. The first annotated English language translation was completed and published by Lionel Giles in 1910.[2] Leaders as diverse as Mao Zedong, General Vo Nguyen Giap, General Douglas MacArthur and leaders of Imperial Japan have drawn inspiration from the work.

If you can turn off your preprogrammed misconceptions you will learn a lot

ideas to look for
-no nation can sustain war for long and survive
-wars are not won on battle fields (read the PDF again)

Now reread the PDF again
the concept being executed is war by other means
historical examples
-vietnam
-korea

Perhaps I was to nice in my earlier statement
Right now the US government problem is too much is spent on the military

Your statement is a general idea twisted without understanding the issue behind your idea
we are not making ourselves strong and its voters such as yourself who are directly to blame

problems in military
-waste
-corruption

This is causing a major drain on the economy because it is being spent on S#$% we do not need..


The other issue is quiet simple
Do you wish to learn arabic or mandarin
Do you wish to change religions

both at gun point


I am so glad you are attempting to derail this thread (yes my response is WBOM)

I am not a war hawk
Have you had to deal with people emotionally scarred by your elected officials decisions
(keep in mind I voted for myself on every open ballot.. so any other vote is your fault.. WBOM)


As for the water supply issue you mentioned
The technology is available
The personnel is available
The funding exist

The issue is
The poor little (insert species here) habitat will be poisoned by the bad homosapien..

So which is it
Do we water the people of America or do we protect the environment

Keep in mind the water can be had for pennies on the dollar and sold for dimes on the dollar

It wont happen because of the Environmentalist such as yourself.. You forget man is an animal still



In conclusion.. Pick up a book and read..

The issue the OP covered point blank is russia realizing it can not fight the US with armies by day so it has only guerrillas by night..

The arms reduction treaties are a dangerous farce shoveled for the gullible

There is no way to enforce the other countries will 100% abide by the agreement
Proof
Did you cancel your vacation to Crimea, or have you decided that you are not going to visit the Russian Federation