While I'm in basic conceptual accord with Simon on strategic modes, I think his discussion point offers a false choice based on over-simplification. To my mind, it seems likely that the immense build-up of nuclear strike capacity in the US arsenal (particularly the creation of small-package warheads that allowed US submarines to deploy considerably more firepower than Soviet subs) created enormous economic pressure on a Russian military and civilian leadership trying to keep pace. The opportunity to engage in talks provided a release valve for that pressure. So it was an economic problem that Reagan helped create for the Soviet Union (as well as the US, but that's a whole 'nother story), and the problem's solution was talking. -Wm. Dolphin Ontario (the one in southern California) -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:35 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Mr. Nice Guy Strategy Eric: "See, that didn't hurt. You agreed" Irony? Woosh! Straight over the head. The problem I have, the ever lasting problem, is the consequence of draconian resolve; it doesn't provide any reward for good behaviour beyond a notion of survival and after that a good proportion will want revenge for draconian action. In contrast, Mr Nice is in a position to offer a good time to anyone who behaves. Discussion point: Did Reagan succeed with Gorbachov because he threatened imminent destruction or because he talked. Did that simple fact - talking - do the stuff? Simon ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html