Is there any evidence to support the claim that the US Strategic Defense Initiative played any significant role in undermining the USSR?

score:17

Accepted answer

From Global Security: Russian Military Spending:

In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles, or about US$33 billion. Given the size of the military establishment, however, the actual figure was at least ten times higher. Western experts concluded that the 21 billion ruble figure reflected only operations and maintenance costs. The amount spent on Soviet weapons research and development was an especially well-guarded state secret, and other military spending, including training, military construction, and arms production, was concealed within the budgets of all-union ministries and state committees.

The publicized cuts in defense spending were being done for political purposes in the 1980's, in an attempt to separate Western Europe from the US. Clandestine military spending was done at the same or higher levels. Maintaining this level of defense spending, roughly 15-17% of GNP, was unsustainable given the other problems, which you noted, that the USSR was having. There's more detail here: Russian Military Budget Expenditures

Did SDI contribute to this? Since it was part of the general US military build-up to confront the Soviets, it did to some small degree. Was it the sole reason? Certainly not. Not even the entire increase in US military spending was the sole cause although it would be fair to say it was about 1/3 to 1/2 of it.

The problem with recognizing the effect Reagan era military spending had on the collapse of the USSR has more to do with current US politics than anything else. Today's conservatives revere Reagan while today's liberals revile him. Since most academics lean to the left, the role of defense spending gets downplayed. What gets forgotten is that Reagan managed to negotiate with the Democrats in Congress to get things done, a skill that hasn't been exercised by the current administration or the one before it.

Upvote:1

I recently came across a quote from Franz Schurmann which put it this way " the Soviet colossus was brought down not by foreign defeat, revolution in the streets, or fatal factional disputes but by a profound loss of spiritual faith. Ironically, for a system that prided itself on atheism and materialism, it turned out to be critically dependent on this faith. Communism was a kind of religion, and when people stopped believing in it, they withdrew their support and the colossus fell."

Originally I found this claim in an introduction to a book on China's Cultural Revolution "The Red Mirror" but it seems to coincide with what I recall about the Soviet Union at the time where it was said people just stopped supporting the party. Once that started, and when the top stopped pushing the old Cold War agenda it just started falling apart. Communism in replacing religion had the support of the people, but once that foundation goes you aren't left with much if you don't have a strong man at the helm.

Upvote:3

Note that just about every USA scientist, including those working on it, thought the whole idea was ludicrous too. You don't have to find secret Soviet documents saying that. :-)

Still I have heard that claim about SDI killing the USSR argued, and there's a good case for it.

The argument is that the entire Cold War regieme depended on the concept of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD); the idea that neither side would attack the other directly because both sides knew full well that if they did so, the other side would be able to destroy the aggressor.

The important thing here is psycology. If one side got it in their heads somehow that it was in fact possible for one side to destroy the other without getting destroyed in return, then MAD no longer works. The truth of the matter isn't important, just what both sides believe to be the truth.

What SDI did was allow the American side to plausibly argue that they no longer believed the MAD condition to be true. Again, if they were right or wrong isn't that important. The Soviets would have had to develop some kind of clear counter to SDI that would convince Regan and his band of (insert your favorite adjective here) that MAD had been reasserted. That would have been really expensive, and the USSR just didn't have that kind of money or technology.

Now I'm not really sure I entirely buy this argument. If it were me I'd add SDI to all the US's other military spending, and say that the Soviet Union simply got to the point where it could no longer afford to keep up a credible military counterbalance. Once folks got the idea that there was no longer a real balance of power, the USSR's credibility at home and abroad simply collapsed.

Upvote:3

I believe, no.

The USSR disintegrated due to different reasons. The US maybe played role in it but not through the means of SDI but most likely through propaganda and influence on the top party officials.

More post

Search Posts

Related post