Talk:Reykjavík Summit

message: This article seems to be more detailed, but both cover the same event.  Perhaps a merge is in order? Banality 03:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tag

message: A pretty biased article. Why not blame Reagan for the failure of the summit, since after all it was he who insisted on keeping SDI.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.253.190.205 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A BBC documentary on Reagan suggested that he was up for abolishing all nuclear weapons as Gorbachev proposed, but Reagan's advisors were horrified and dissuaded him Fig (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: On May 7 03:51, Fluoborate added this to the main page.  It belongs of this talk page. Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: citation needed|reason=This would seem very unlikely, especially because one of the premises of negotiations was that Britain and France could keep their nuclear weapons. This was a reasonable premise especially because those nations were not present at the summit. The NYT Flashback Quiz repeated this claim of the US and USSR eliminating all nuclear weapons. A contemporary NYT article does NOT mention any such proposal, but it was not necessarily a complete summary of the discussion. However, it was more detailed than this article and did not mention totally eliminating nuclear weapons. China and possibly India already had nuclear weapons at this time, I can't imagine the US or USSR would give up all their weapons. |date=May 2024}}
Rjensen (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so strange. According to the Miller Center at U Virginia at  https://millercenter.org/president/reagan/foreign-affairs : "Reagan was deeply worried about the accepted national policy that had prevailed since the Soviets acquired atomic weapons of "mutual assured destruction." This assumed that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States would ever attack each other out of mutual fear that both nations would be effectively destroyed in a nuclear exchange. This, said Reagan, was "a truly mad policy." He believed that it was immoral to destroy the civilian population of another country in a retaliatory attack. He also worried that the two sides might blunder into nuclear war—in fact, that almost happened on September 26, 1983, when a defective Soviet satellite system mistakenly reported a supposed U.S. missile attack. Reagan's vision, not well understood when he took office and sometimes misrepresented even today, was of a world free of nuclear weapons and the terror they posed to all mankind."  quoting https://millercenter.org/president/reagan/foreign-affairs. UK and France were minor players who would go along.  Other  countries in 1980s did not have these weapon systems.  Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ralph L. Dietl argues in his book: The Strategic Defense Initiative: Ronald Reagan, NATO,  Europe, and the Nuclear and Space Talks, 1981–1988 (2018): Reagan remembered WW2 and was fixated on the vastly greater horrors of nuclear war. He told Gorbachev that SDI, a high-tech defensive space shield, would end the horrible risk of nuclear war. Washington would share SDI technology with Moscow. It would make nuclear missiles worthless. Reagan insisted on SDI and Gorbachev insisted no. (probably because he realized the USSR was roo far behind in high tech to build an SDI system).  Rjensen (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  was it a strange request?