million.71
While these statistics were staggering, they were merely a sample of what was to come.72 These were life-sustaining technologies at a fatal time for a Kremlin on the ropes, and depriving Moscow of them was a severe blow. Radomir Bogdanov, a former KGB official serving as deputy director of the USA and Canada Institute, had no doubt about Washington’s mischief: The Reagan team was “trying to destroy our economy.”73
MORE RESTRICTIONS ON TECHNOLOGY
On November 30, 1982, only a day after the release of NSDD-66, came NSDD-70, which restricted the transfer of “nuclear capable missile technology” to certain nations. It also limited “dual-use” goods—products that can have both a peaceful-commercial use and a belligerent-military use. In so doing, the directive restricted a broad category of high-tech exports to the USSR. NSDD-70 allowed the Reagan administration to, “Exempt on a caseby-case basis certain U.S. friends and allies from this policy.” Soviet comrades were not among the “U.S. friends.” The directive stated:
All Executive Branch agencies having responsibilities or authorizations for export controls, including missile-related commodities, will adopt stringent export controls on technology and equipment which could make a direct or significant contribution to the design, development, production, inspection, testing or use of nuclear capable missile delivery systems and related components. At a minimum this will include guidance sub-systems and related software, propellants, propulsion systems, rocket nozzles and related control systems, re-entry sub- systems, missile structure, and unique support equipment.
An expansive rubric of high-tech items fell under this designation, particularly through the use of ambiguous terms like “unique support equipment” and “at a minimum.” Of course, the intention was to be expansive. The Reagan team was looking for a vehicle to restrict as many high-tech (and other) products as possible to the USSR—all the better to strangle the USSR. NSDD-70 offered yet another form of justification—on the nuclear side. With it, the administration could prevent even the most basic computer hardware and software from entering the USSR, plus more.74
While technology embargoes would prove to be central to the administration’s efforts, these NSDDs from the fall of 1982 served a far greater purpose than merely restricting Soviet access to trade. Through their harsh language and unmistakable goals, these NSDDs became a clear articulation of Reagan’s anti-Communist methodology for combating the Soviet economy. With the help of Clark and the NSC, the NSDDs became the frontline of Cold War combat, as Reagan demonstrated his unflinching desire to engage the Soviets on any economic front available.
As 1982 wound down, the administration was in overdrive as it sought to carry its economic assault into the new year. The NSDDs of the past year had given new focus to the administration’s strategies, as Ronald Reagan saw his words turn into actionable policy. And yet there was no time for Reagan to rest on his laurels. He was sure that he had started to back the Soviets into a corner, and it was thus important for his administration to maintain its momentum as it pressed the foreign agenda forward. The year had been a busy one in the war on Communism, and as the world would soon find out, things were about to get busier.
12. The Hottest Year in a Cold War: 1983
ON JANUARY 17, 1983, A TASS DISPATCH BY VLADIMIR SEROV fired off a warning concerning Ronald Reagan and his band of fellow “crusaders.” Making reference to the previous summer of 1982, Serov reminded readers that Reagan had devised a “strategy” that constituted a “‘crusade’ against communism”; this was a “‘roll- back communism’ policy.”1 To Moscow, 1983 was going to be a year in which the Reagan administration would pursue more of the same. More of the same rhetoric. More of the same economic sanctions. More of the same crusade. Little did the Soviets know what was actually in store.
Long after the papers had hit the stands in Russia that January 17, the day was dawning in the United States. January had begun slowly for the administration, which was still reeling from its wealth of activity in 1982. The NSDDs of the previous year were poised to yield tremendous results, all of which would take their toll on the ever-weakening USSR.
Ronald Reagan had big things on his mind that day. The goal was to start the year off with a bang. The goal was to keep momentum strong and morale high. That objective for early 1983 was evident on that winter day, in the form of NSDD-75.
The embodiment of Reagan’s thinking on U.S.–USSR coexistence, NSDD-75 was probably the most important document in Cold War strategy by the Reagan administration, and certainly the most significant and sweeping directive in terms of institutionalizing the Reagan intent and grand strategy. Predicated on Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Soviet Union was rotten to the core and should be broken, the document was fully committed to pursuing this end rather than maintaining the status quo that accepted Soviet existence.2
Norm Bailey would dub NSDD-75, “the strategic plan that won the Cold War.”3 His NSC colleague, Tom Reed, called it “the blueprint for the endgame” and “a confidential declaration of economic and political war.”4 One of the longest NSDDs, the directive covered nine pages, and took quite a while to craft. Its chief author, Richard Pipes, had been working on it since the spring of 1981, first under Richard Allen and then with the backing of Bill Clark and contributions from the likes of Roger Robinson—and against heavy obstruction by the State Department.5 Pipes called it “a clear break from the past. [NSDD-75] said our goal was no longer to coexist with the Soviet Union but to change the Soviet system. At its root was the belief that we had it in our power to alter the Soviet system through the use of external pressure.”6
Indeed, NSDD-75 was revolutionary, turning on its head the doctrine of containment that had formed the cornerstone of American foreign policy since George Kennan sent his famous “Long Telegram” from Moscow in February 1946.
As Bill Clark put it, NSDD-75’s search for “internal pressure” to bring to bear on the USSR represented a “new objective of U.S. policy.” “We worked hard,” said Clark, “on that new policy element of trying to turn the Soviet Union inside itself.” He notes that, under Reagan, for the first time U.S. policy went beyond containment and negotiations and toward encouraging “antitotalitarian changes within the USSR.” America, said Clark, would “seek to weaken Moscow’s hold on its empire.”7
Partly based on previous NSDDs like 32, 45, 54, and 66, NSDD-75 was tamely titled, “U.S. Relations with the USSR.” In the first paragraph, it declared that U.S. policy would focus on “external resistance to Soviet imperialism” and “internal pressure on the USSR to weaken the sources of Soviet imperialism.” Within that, it stated two core “U.S. tasks:” First, “To contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism…. This will remain the primary focus of U.S. policy toward the USSR.” And, second, “To promote, within the narrow limits available to us, the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic political and economic system in which the power of the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced.”8
It was this front-page language that reflected Pipes’ principle contribution. He wrote and fought for this language, insisting that the document articulate the central aim of striving to reform the Soviet Union. “The State Department vehemently objected to that,” recalled Pipes. “They saw it as meddling in Soviet internal affairs, as dangerous and futile in any event. We persisted and we got that in.”9
In the end, the inclusion of those lines which were at once impossible but prophetic proved to be the defining language of NSDD-75. And yet those lines, whose prescience is chilling, whose historical significance cannot be overstated, were nearly removed by the State Department, which urged they be struck from the text. In
