Ed Rasimus wrote in message

That being said, however, I'll disagree with your contention that
strategic missiles did more to hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union
than the tactical forces and the continued development and application
of weapons that demonstrated conclusively the superiority of American
technology, training and innovation. The collapse of Soviet client
forces and the inability of Soviet doctrine to counter or even compete
effectively led to the collapse.

Sitting and waiting with a deterrent force kept the peace, but it also
insured a stalemate. Demonstrating over the years that SA-2, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 11, 12, 13, etc. etc. couldn't protect against American airpower
and that MiG-17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29 and AA-2,, etc etc, couldn't
counter US fighters, the armor couldn't shoot, scoot and communicate
as did ours and the maneuver elements of the ground forces couldn't
integrate and coordinate at the level of our tactical forces, and the
Navy couldn't project and sustain operations globally as ours could,
etc. etc. That's what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


I agree with everything you said, and defer to your expertise in these
areas. However, it is also true that trying to keep up with our
strategic weapons during the Reagan administration-- Peacekeeper,
Small ICBM, stealth technology, and others-- had no small part in
breaking the bear's budget and hastening the collapse of the Soviet
Union.

Jim Thomas