The United State’s deployment of nuclear tipped Ground Launch Cruise Missiles (GLCM) to Europe, and The United Kingdom had much more to do with the fall of the Wall, and the end of The Soviet Union, than the events described in this article.

Soviet records of this period reveal that the Russian leaders regarded the deployment of that weapon system as a virtual check mate in the Cold War. At that point, the Evil Empire truly started an irretrievable collapse.

If that's true, then why didn't the USSR fall until well after the INF treaty banned them?

...the sixties in europe. and it was the deployment of russian nuclear mobile missiles that caused the west agida. Not the other way around. Cruise missiles are slow. They are easily handled by AWACS/MIGs.

Please note, however, that the CIA, salted with Neocons in the 70s by Ford's Chief of Staff, continued their absurdly exaggerated assessments of the Soviet threat right up to the very end.

“If that's true, then why didn't the USSR fall until well after the INF treaty banned them?”

“Cruise missiles are slow. They are easily handled by AWACS/MIGs.”

The “fall” did not happen instantaneously. Simply, the missiles were not deployed on Monday, and Tuesday the Evil Empire fell. The Soviet leadership, and their allies (domestic, and international) tried to find a way of countering the GLCMs but failed.

Why? Simply banning the weapon took time, and, is ineffective, since once the system is developed the “cat is out of the bag.” It exists, and may be redeployed at a moments notice.

How? GLCMs are simple, quickly built, fast to deploy in vast numbers, and easily concealed. These qualities rendered the system relatively immune to a preemptive strike (unlike ICBM/IRBM systems).

So why were they a “check mate?” For the above reasons, plus, a technological breakthrough which made them unstoppable.

TERCOM allowed the GLCMs to fly so low, and gave them such navigational and accuracy capability, that a defense against them was impossible. Simply, the Soviets did not have enough AWACS, or fighter assets to counter a GLCM strike…nor could they ever (conceivably) develop one because if they did…the US could simply build more GLCMs to overwhelm the defense.

In essence, this is the same warfighting paradox confounding the proponents of a ABM systems.

Thank you for your comments.

...the downfall of the USSR. There is something the US did to bring the USSR to prominence in the world, it's called LandLease. Otherwise, the USSR would have collapsed a longtime ago on its own corruption and incompetence. And it was the US that played up the USSR threat since the 1950s. The people in the know always knew that the USSR was too incompetent to launch a pantry raid.

Basically, the US and USSR have a lot in common. It's called systemic incompetence.

were a chip off their Russian comrade's block. Communism, and totalitarianism is just not an effective organization. In their system, nobody is allowed to make a decision, unless it comes from the top. When the top is drunk, then no decision is to be gotten, and they might as well surrender. Which is what they did.

The Communists were neither as mean, nor as competent, nor as dangerous as the US propaganda led everybody to believe. Another lie from the Washington DC propaganda machine.

“Please note, however, that the CIA, salted with Neocons in the 70s by Ford's Chief of Staff, continued their absurdly exaggerated assessments of the Soviet threat right up to the very end.”

“And it was the US that played up the USSR threat since the 1950s. The people in the know always knew that the USSR was too incompetent to launch a pantry raid.”

IMHO these views are incorrect. May I remind the reader of the following facts of Soviet (first strike) weapons development:

1955 the development, and deployment of the worlds first nuclear capable SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) SS-N-4 Sark

August 1957, development and deployment of the first nuclear capable ICBM, the R 7

Early 1960’s development, and deployment to Cuba of 42 nuclear armed R-12 Sandal missiles, bringing Washington, DC, and most of the US eastern sea board under threat of a first strike with single digit warning times, in conscious disregard of a stated US policy, and Soviet assurances against such deployment, and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.

1961 development of the worlds first Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) the GR-1 Scrag. Simply, to achieve a first strike this system would launch nuclear missile from Earth orbit.

Development of the R-36-0 launch vehicle enhancing the capabilities of the above FOBS system.

Early 1960’s development, and deployment, of the R-36-M SS-18/RS-20 Satan missile system. Simply put, the worlds largest, most powerful ICBM carrying enough capability (MIRVS) to carry out a first strike on US land based ICBMs.

I could go on, but suffice to say that, although there have been times of incorrect analysis by the US of Soviet intentions and capabilities, overall, the Soviet Union consistently showed a predilection toward a preemptive, first strike.

Additionally, in regards to revisionist historians (The Communists were neither as mean, nor as competent, nor as dangerous as the US propaganda led everybody to believe. Another lie from the Washington DC propaganda machine. )

who would like all to believe that the Soviet capability for violence is a chimera of western propaganda machines;

3,000,000 Victims: The Civil War Period 1917 to 1922

2,000,000 Victims: The NEP Period 1923-1928

11,000,000 Victims: The Collectivization Period 1928-1935

4,000,000 Victims: The Great Terror Period 1935-1938

5,000,000 Victims: Pre-World War II Period 1939 to June, 1941

5,000,000 Victims During the Pre-World War II Period

13,000,000 Victims: World War II Period June, 1941 to 1945

16,000,000 Victims: Post-War and Stalin's Twilight Period 1945-1953

7,000,000 Victims: Post-Stalin Period 1954-1987

Unconvinced? Just ask citizens of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Latvia, etc, what they think of the notion of Soviets not being “mean’”.

I think 'intersurfa' is mostly right about the incompetence and corruption in the former USSR and the effects. Also, the arms race probably did something in the long run to bring down the USSR system as the nation had such a weak economy. Otherwise, I think the collapse of the USSR is mostly to be explained by their politicians ideological rigidity and thus inability to enable pragmatic solutions to the nation's huge structural and economic problems.

One example of the USSR leaders ideological obsessions that I heard of when I visited Moscow in the summer of 1989, was how they hadn't raised the rents in the apartment buildings since the years following immediately after the revolution. i.e. ca 1918-19. Raising the rents would (in their minds) have shattered the picture of USSR as the workers paradise. How ideology kept trumping economic facts, how USSR leaders kept pretending that the system worked until it collapsed over their heads, were probably among the most important factors leading up to the collapse of the Wall. Also, one naturally ought to credit Miklos Nemeth (the then Hungarian prime minister) for his courageous opening of the iron curtain's Austrian border in the summer of 1989 (the Wall coming down after that confirmed the leak that already was).

Wow, so easily we rewrite history.

The Russians would have rolled across Europe had it not been for the US military to at least stand in their way, and they were fed the slavs to keep them happy. Nor did the Russians see fit to excuse themselves from Eastern Europe after the war, nor were they happy with the Hungarians for wanting out. I guess the Russian soldiers at the Berlin Wall were there to direct traffic.

The USSR was brought down by the US in a war of economics rather than in an all-out military war which would destroy everyone. Reagan understood this strategy perfectly, while most others did not. We simply outspent them. Star Wars was never meant to work successfully, but was meant to drain money and resourses from the Politburo in an effort to overwhelm a defense system that would not work in the first place. Brilliant. It was just a matter of who went bankrupt first. No money, no power. Add in a missile system that could not be easily defeated, and it was, indeed, checkmate. Would the USSR have gone bankrupt eventually on their own? Maybe. The US strategy was to accelerate inevitability along before sinking our own financial ship.

Put down the left-wing re-write history books and think for yourself.

The US met the e russians at the Elbe, and I have no doubts that if it were not for the US troop presence there, in 1945, that the Soviets would have gone through Paris.

and, no argument that US saved Western Europe, Germany in particular, from Soviet domination. The threat of nuclear weapons did the trick. However, we are discussing the fall of the Soviet Union, not the deterance ability of US nuclear weapons. Yes, the US along, and no one else, deterred the Soviets from invading Europe, if they chose to do it. But I am not so sure that the Soviets would have invaded western Europe. Of all the worlds powers, the Russians are actually the only ones who held their power in check. The French, English, Spaniards, etc. invaded everybody and their brother, but the Russians never did, except for border conflicts with their neighbors.

"However, we are discussing the fall of the Soviet Union, not the deterance ability of US nuclear weapons"

Yes, the USSR went bankrupt and fell because their socialistic society could not support the high long-term expenditures required to keep up with US military expenditures. Poor social conditions, low standards of living, no money, growing unrest and elements in the leadership who simply threw their hands up, made the system unsustainable. Reagan's strategy all along was a war of economic attrition-- a pretty slick, overlooked and misinterpreted strategy at that. Most people at the time thought he was nuts, me included.

that's where your logic falls down. the north vietnamese didn't have military parity with the south vietnamese either, it didn't prevent them from fighting for communism.

the idea that the soviet union fell because it couldn't keep up in military spending is garbage.

the communists fell because their own people wanted to travel. they fell because their civilians were not interested anymore in communism. that's how it fell. people went on the streets to protest. the soldiers let them mount their tanks, kissem, and joined the 'revolution'.

the wall fell because the order from the top was misunderstood, an officer opened the gate of the hoover damn, and then the masses rushing forward couldn't be stopped. the communist regime could have ordered open fire. either in east germany, or poland, or checheslovakia or ruissia or ukraine or......but the bottom line was, the communists taught peace and goodwill to mankind themselves, contrary to popular american belief that's not an american invention, only the communists did a good job of teaching it and practicing it. after all is said and done, they didn't behave like the tyrants that americans had the world believe for decades.

pull our troops out of the middle east, afghanistan and iraq, you'll be amazed what other benefits peace will bring.

I must disagree with the notion that the primary reason the Soviet Union failed, taking with it such icons of oppression as the Berlin Wall, was because of a failure of a Soviet style economy that could not compete with the west in providing a western equivalent standard of living. Meaning, the Soviet Union fell, not because not enough citizens could buy a new car every two years, and own their on ranch style, 3 bedroom two bath dacha... but because they did not have the money to build a superior military.

The Soviets never intended, or had the capability, to compete on a consumer economy with western capitalism.

Alternatively, the Soviets always indented to conquer militarily…through intimidation or…failing that…through outright warfare if the opportunity presented itself.

That meant they had to be one card up on the West, that meant building a superior military, and that meant spending all their capital on arms.

Only when they could not economically build the weapons needed to that end, did the Soviet system come down.

That “economic” moment came when, after a decades long preamble, President Reagan deployed GLCMs to Europe, and the UK.

The Communist nations didn't surrender. Their power structure throw in the towel. LOL. their own population didn't want the Communists in power anymore. That's what made them fall. the population didn't know about GLCM's. And besides, who ever quit a war because their equipment is outdated? I mean that thought is so dumb only an American can believe it's true.

your argument makes no sense at all and totally ignores the sequence of real events.

And of all the western leaders, Reagan was the least feared of them all. but Reagan did a lot of things right. Permitting, or even instrumentalizing German unification was a wise decision by Reagan. You should know, that most non-Americans fear the US plunging the world into nuclear holocaust more then anyone else. Only the Americans have already dropped two nuclear bombs on civilians. Noone else ever has. If there's a lose canon on the deck of the world, it's the US. And it's that lose canon without a brain is what's scary.