Russian Deception: Gorbachev Ended the Cold War to Get America to Disarm, So That Russia Could (Eventually) Bomb Us!

 (Open Letter To Anne Applebaum, Columnist for the Washington Post,)              
I read your article in "Foreign Policy" magazine a few months back. It was about the question of Why Did Russia End the Cold War? Pardon my forgetfulness but I don't recall much of your answer. But I do recall that Soviet deception was not part of the equation. You definitely didn't say Gorbachev ended the Cold War (and let Eastern Europe go free and let the USSR split up) in order to persuade us to disarm.                      
                     
But I want to present the case for just such a deceptive motive on the part of the Kremlin. I ask that you give my presentation a fair hearing. And if you have any comments  -  I would be very honored to hear your opinion.                    
                   
Because Gorbachev ended the Cold War, most people concluded that he was not a Stalinist. But let's do something novel by looking at his ending of the Cold War from a Stalinist point of view. Could it be possible that the ending the Cold War makes sense from the Stalinist point of view?  I mean, could it be that Gorbachev's ending the Cold War was a Stalinist ploy? A trick to trick us into disarming? If so, just how would Russia benefit if America disarms drastically?              
             
To answer these questions, let me start with the CRISIS that Gorbachev faced, when he came to power back in the mid 1980s.Yes, there was a real CRISIS IN THE KREMLIN. Let me explain. As you know, from Stalin's time up until Gorbachev, the Kremlin had been working religiously, devotedly, to gain the capability to win a nuclear war. I mean, they sacrificed social programs for the sake of military spending. When I say, "win a nuclear war" I'm talking about the destroying of America's retaliatory arsenal. (If they can hit us without us hitting back, they win.It's that simple.)              
           
Our nuclear Triad is made up of 3 parts:(1)ICBMs, (2)Strategic Bombers, (3)SLBMs fired from our submarines. So, if Russia gains the ability to destroy our ICBMs, Bombers and Boomer subs (or their SLBMs) the Kremlin can win nuclear war.            
           
Just how far along on that road did the Kremlin get by 1985 when Gorbachev came to power? Well, Russia has gained the ability to destroy all our ICBMs in their silos within the first 6 minutes of a nuclear strike.For missiles fired by Soviet subs can reach our ICBM silos that fast.  While the GPS system wasn't in place back then, it was "in the pipeline," on the way.The Kremlin knew it would be available in the 1990s.So, now Russian submarine-launched  SLBMs are accurate enough to score direct hits on our ICBM silos. One down, two to go.(One leg of our Triad down, two legs to go.)              
             
Secondly, Russia had gained the ability to shoot down our Bombers. Russia was building Surface-to-Air Missiles(SAMs) to take out our B52s. As for our B2 Stealths, there is only 19 of them. I think just one-third are on alert, ready to launch within 6 minutes. Even if two-thirds are ready, that means no more than 13 B2s. Russia has fighter-jets armed with cruise missiles to shoot down our very few B2s.  
 
So we can say, two down, one to go. For Russia, back in the 1980s, had gained, or was in the process of gaining, the ability to destroy two legs of our three-legged Triad,  agreed?  
 
Third,Now for our submarines. Russia could bomb the ports housing one third of our Boomer subs. Plus Russia was building a nation-wide Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system for intercepting our incoming missile warheads. They reportedly had enough ABMs to shoot down 1300 warheads, about a quarter of the warheads aboard the 26 Boomer subs we had at sea. Altogether, if we subtract the American Boomer subs in port(1/3 of total), and subtract our SLBM warheads that Russia's ABMs could shoot down, Russia could negate the equivalent of half of our Boomer subs.That means half of the last "leg" of our Triad.  
So, altogether Russia was able to destroy 2.5 legs out of the 3 legs of our Triad.  
 
(The claim that Russia's ABMs could shoot down "1300 warheads"  comes from an article by William T. Lee, an ex-CIA analyst,"Russia As The World's Number One Nuclear Power," Washington Times, 1/30/96).          
               
That's where the Kremlin stood when Gorbachev came to power. So why do I speak of a crisis in the Kremlin? Because, building 6,000 more ABMs and several additional "battle-management stations" to destroy the remainder of the last leg of our Nuclear Triad was too much trouble, technically.  The last half of our 39 Boomer subs amounted to more than 3,000 warheads! (It would require 2 ABMs per warhead.)  
 
The Kremlin preferred to resort to Arms Control agreements to get us - we, ourselves - to cut back on the number of subs we had. But there was NO WAY we would be willing to cut back far enough, from the Kremlin's point of view. For that would mean reducing the number of subs we had from 39 down to 14 or fewer. No, certainly not as long as the Cold War was on-going. The only way Russia could get us to reduce that drastically was to END THE COLD WAR and hope for the best.            
           
But the amount of work that that would entail would be so Herculean that it was basically impossible. THAT is what I mean by "crisis in the Kremlin." Could the Kremlin muster the will power, the determination, to do the equivalent of "moving heaven and earth"? For it would take not only the ending of the Cold War, but also the giving up of Eastern Europe. Plus the USSR would have to be split up! And Communism would have to be replaced with capitalism and democracy! (Superficially, of course). All to deceive the gullible West into disarming enough to allow the Kremlin to (eventually) launch and win nuclear war!  
         
By itself, Russia's ending the Cold War wouldn't be enough to get us to accept Arms Control agreements that would reduce our  39 Boomer subs down to just 14, which is the number Russia needed. No, for as long as Russia occupied Eastern Europe, and also the 14 other Soviet republics, America would regard Russia's peace moves as reversible. No, Russia had to "prove" its sincerity by making all those secondary moves, in addition to ending the Cold War.          
         
Anyway, if you buy the idea that in the 1980s (and onward) the Kremlin desperately wanted America to voluntarily reduce our submarine fleet BY TWO-THIRDS, you should also accept that Russia ended the Cold War for THAT reason. For that peace move (and the other concessions) was the only way Russia could persuade America to disarm so drastically. In short, Gorbachev's making peace isn't evidence that he isn't a Stalinist. Rather it is evidence he IS a true believing Stalinist - all the way!      
       
I spoke (two paragraphs ago) of "just 14" as "the number Russia needed," meaning that Russia wanted us to reduce our subs down to just 14. In June of 2003 America reduced our 18 Boomer subs down to 14.  But Russia still hasn't hit us. Does this disprove my claim that Russia made peace so that (1) we'd disarm, so that (2) Russia could then go ahead and bomb us?      
       
No, my claim, more specifically, is that (1)Russia has an ABM system capable of shooting down 1300 incoming warheads, and that (2)Russia will hit us ONLY AFTER we reduce our warheads (SLBMs) down to BELOW that number(1300 warheads). When we went from 39 subs (13 in port/26 at sea) down to just 14 subs, this cut the number in port to just 4 subs. With just 8 at sea.For a total of 12 subs.(The extra 2 subs are not part of our retaliatory plan.) We still had more than 1300 warheads. And so Russia wouldn't attack us.      
       
But the 8 subs at sea represent 8 x 168 warheads, for a total of 1344 warheads. So Russia has got us almost down to where they want us, as far as the number of our warheads is concerned. If we go from 4-4-4 down to 3-3-3 (3 subs in port, 3 subs on position, 3 subs going out to relieve the other 3 subs), then we'll reduce from 8 subs at sea down to just 6 subs(3 and 3). This difference of just 2 subs will mean a reduction of 2x168 warheads! bringing us down below the 1300 threshold for the first time! Instead of the present 1344 warheads, we'll have just 1008 warheads. Russia will be certain to launch a First Strike at that point!        
       
My request to you, Anne Applebaum, is that you would inquire of the Pentagon as to any plans to reduce the number of subs we have at sea. Could you please find out if the Pentagon plans on cutting the 8 Boomer subs at sea down to just 6 subs.(Which would be to save money, of course - due to the SEQUESTRATION). If so, could you please report immediately to the public any such change in our national defense posture? (Ordinarily, the Pentagon wouldn't be thinking of making this risk-taking reduction, of course. But the SEQUESTRATION means there is more pressure to save money than before. So this reduction of 2 subs is a real possibility.)

Please reply to joegracegrace@gmail.com before October 12, Columbus Day.(AMERICA'S DAY).
Preferably by October 10 at the very latest. Thank you so much! (Yes, I'm fearful about Oct 11-12.)