Andrew Sullivan has a nice collection of foolish quotes about Reagan from the eighties. This one in particular caught my eye:

"Are we rushing headlong into the next step of those 40 years of progressions by which we do something then they do something, by which we pretend that we're going to build this and it will somehow strengthen our deterrent then they do it, and low and behold, the next thing we know is, the President of the United States is addressing the nation saying, ‘My fellow Americans, I hate to tell you this, but the Soviet Union is deploying more of these, and we have to respond, and I'm asking the Congress for more money in order to respond.’ Star Wars is guaranteed to do that, and it's guaranteed to threaten the heavens -- the one line we haven't yet crossed with weaponry: the heavens."

– Senator John Kerry, on SDI, the program that brought the evil empire to its knees, August 5, 1986.

I always found this argument that SDI was "militarizing" space specious and fraudulent. In its essence, what it really meant was "we must keep space a sanctuary through which our weapons (and particularly their weapons, which are the only thing containing our overarching imperialism) can pass unimpeded."

Exactly, because weapons invaded space a long time ago. Say someone shots a 105mm howitzer shell and it fly through the air and lands on my head. Well then that someone has just violated my space.

I say lets weapons keep going up. Matter of fact, I want to see battle robots of the 21st century battling it out of satellite TV.

I seem to remember reading that the old Salyut stations had cannon batteries on one end of the complex. I'd say the line had been crossed by the USSR, then, before SDI was even a policy speech.

The line was crossed in 1944, when von Braun's team bombarded England and Holland with weapons that traveled through space.

The space sanctuary argument is a commonly held idealogically-driven one. There are many more sides to the isssue though.

The SDI system was different in that it was a dedicated weapon system _emplaced_ in Earth orbit, not simply transiting through like ICBMs. It's an important distinction.

Then there's the problem of what constitutes a space-based "weapon", when everything in orbit has such high relative velocities that almost anything can be used a weapon, including weather satellites, small rocks and sand, substantially larger rocks that are in easily accessible orbits...

The real question is whether or not each measure stablizes or destabilizes the global strategic balance. Destablization leading to a global arms race in space may be possible, and if so, a conflict in space could render LEO unusable for a hundred years, or worse things could happen.

Then again, we may just end up with a great deal of cheap-to-destroy expensive-to-make high tech weaponry in space, and a booming space industry the uses the cash it makes to progress the art of space exploration.

ahh, but Kevin, destabilization was the goal and the fall of the Soviet Union was the result.

ahh, but Kevin, destabilization was the goal and the fall of the Soviet Union was the result.

Hmmm, would be nice if there were evidence backing this up. Which brings me to a question I asked elsewhere on Transterrestrial (but on an old thread). What are good references to the actual history of the Cold War? I keep hearing how military buildup ended the Cold War and caused the USSR to fall. From what I've seen, the USSR simply reached a breaking point driven more by internal forces not external pressure.

I don't know about the reference you're looking for Karl, but quotes abound from Soviet officials and generals who think that Reagan and SDI were a key element in ending the Cold War. And in retrospect, that he was right about it being an evil empire.

The SDI system was different in that it was a dedicated weapon system _emplaced_ in Earth orbit, not simply transiting through like ICBMs. It's an important distinction.

Why is it an important distinction?

That is, besides the fact that making such a pointless distinction makes it easier for demagogues like John Kerry to say that we're "militarizing space" with it?

Exactly. The "militarizing space" notion has always struck me as rediculous. One of the very first uses of space technology was developing the means to rain down thousands of megatons of destructive power in nuclear warheads, from space. That makes a rather tough act to follow.

A key point for SDI was the increase in accuracy for ballistic missiles. Assuming that the arms race continued, it was expected that by sometime in the '90s submarine launched missiles could have pinpoint accuracy. It would likely force "launch on warning" or at least a very itchy trigger finger. Either way, the chance for a nuclear war would go up wildly. As for militarizing space, I think it is idiotic that we are not protecting our space assets today. The U.S. could be badly hurt if somebody decided to go after our satellites.

Karl said: "I keep hearing how military buildup ended the Cold War and caused the USSR to fall. From what I've seen, the USSR simply reached a breaking point driven more by internal forces not external pressure."

A military government, even a very bad one, can hold onto power if not for external forces – look at North Korea especially, or Cuba. It is generally accepted that the USSR was spending between 20% and 40% of their GDP on the military – but it could have been substantially more, their command economy made estimates difficult. The USSR needed its military to hold the empire together and it most certainly was facing a great deal of external pressure. They faced the West with an economy and technology accelerating far beyond theirs. THEN, to top it off, there was Reagan that started a new round of military development that pushed them even harder.

People weren’t getting food because so many resources were going to the military. Finally, the USSR couldn’t afford to keep the military force going, but without the military they couldn’t keep the tight control over their own people. That was the start of the collapse.