Talk:Reykjavík Summit

Cold War Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland Mid‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge tag

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)[reply]

Second. This is the proper title, I think, rather than the "Iceland Summit". But "Iceland" sure is easier to spell. Moomot 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third. I agree that Iceland is easier to spell but is the incorrect heading. Both articles cover the same event. Perhaps delete the "Iceland Summit" and redirect those requests here.

NPOV?

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)[reply]

I agree. I edited the article to reflect this fact. In fact Richard Rhodes's latest book makes a good case that it was mainly Reagan and his right-wing advisors who stalled the negotiations- Ashujo November 13, 2007

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)[reply]

The article appear bias from the beginning. It states the US talking points primarily with the soviet points secondarily. 8:15 pm, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.18.65 (talk)

was it a strange request?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]