Randall Forsberg, ‘nuclear freeze’ leader, proven wrong by history

Randall Forsberg, leader of the giant 1982 “nuclear freeze” rally in New York City’s Central Park, has died, and all her obituaries are neglecting to mention she was wrong all along.

Forsberg’s campaign for a freeze would have, by definition, “frozen” the levels of U.S. and Soviet nuclear warheads. On June 12, 1982, it was easy for her to find sympathy for her simple-minded idea in Democratic New York, because a Republican was in the White House and the economy was bad.

But what the newspapers are leaving out of the obituaries for Forsberg, who died Oct. 19 at age 64, is that President Ronald Reagan proved her wrong. After rejecting the nuclear freeze, Reagan’s tough bargaining resulted in 1987 in the first reductions of nuclear arsenals ever.

Not a freeze, but a reduction.

The New York Times, in its Forsberg obit today, says:

Some historians and military experts argue that Reagan’s insistence on increasing military spending, combined with economic and political instability in the Soviet Union, led to the downfall of the Soviet bloc and to the eventual, if often tenuous, improvement in relations between the United States and Russia.

But the obit leaves out Reagan’s historic Dec. 8, 1987, signing, with Mikhail Gorbachev, of the treaty eliminating all intermediate- and shorter-range nuclear missiles from Europe. I guess mentioning it would have shown too clearly that Forsberg’s “freeze” was folly.

Against public opinion. Reagan didn’t want to freeze the number of nuclear weapons, particularly considering the Soviets had just installed new nuclear-tipped SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe. Reagan told the Soviets, either remove them or we’ll deploy our own. That was the “zero-zero option.” The Soviets, counting on activists like Forsberg to influence Western public opinion, said no, we’ll keep our missiles in Eastern Europe, and the West should not bring similar intermediate-range missiles into Western Europe.

Reagan answered the “freeze” movement with his March 8, 1983, Evil Empire Speech. Against big and bitter protests, he also persuaded NATO to install nuclear-tipped Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe. Those missiles ended up being the bargaining chip that permitted the historic unfreezing and subtraction of nuclear numbers.

In 1985, Forsberg commented on her shock at Reagan’s 1984 re-election:

“The grass-roots people who poured in thousands of hours over the last few years through their work on the freeze are tremendously disappointed and frustrated,” she said. “We felt that degree of commitment and devotion had to make a difference, and the shock of what happened in the 1984 elections left us reeling.”

Belittling success. When Reagan finally proved her wrong, Forsberg tried to pretend Reagan had nothing to do with the 1987 reduction of atomic weapons, and implied Gorbachev tricked Reagan into it.

But imagine how eager -- how unlikely really -- the Soviets would have been to negotiate had Reagan bowed to the “freezeniks” and let the Soviets keep their one-sided nuclear advantage in Europe.

The “freeze” was a surrender to the status quo. Forsberg embraced it. Reagan was appalled by the status quo. He challenged it, and the Soviet Union came tumbling down.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Warner Debates the Dead]

Easy to debate a woman who is no longer with us and who cannot respond to your patheticly timed and shameless knock - I think you are spineless. I look forward to someday telling you in person what I think of you releasing this after her death - how did this urge to write come along - you heard of her death and posted to your blog.

[Frank Warner]

I’m sorry if my post offended you. It wasn’t meant to belittle Ms. Forsberg’s idealism or her alarm at the nuclear menace. There, she certainly was right.

The post was meant to point out, as commentators examined this very public woman’s life on her death, that there is ample evidence that her approach to nuclear arms control was wrong.

If you wanted to see only uncritical obituaries about her, you need only have looked at 99 percent of the major newspapers in the United States.

My post includes a link to Ms. Forsberg’s own writing on Ronald Reagan’s historic 1987 accord with the Soviets, the INF treaty that produced a reduction, not a freeze, of nuclear arsenals. As I pointed out, she said Reagan didn’t really want the deal, that he essentially was tricked into it.

She wrote:

“The Reaganites were hoisted by their own petard when the Soviets finally accepted the zero option, as well as several subsequent additional conditions the West piled on during the course of the talks in a futile effort to make them fail.”

She also said:

“Another sign of the protest movement’s moderate impact on Reagan is Reagan’s response to his own growing awareness of the danger of nuclear war: this was was to trust to SDI to protect us -- not to reduce or abolish nuclear weapons in an effort to reduce the danger.”

Note that Ms. Forberg published this article in spring of 2000, when Reagan was hardly able to defend himself.

I think it’s safe to say Randall Forsberg and Ronald Reagan both were trying to do the world some good.

[George]

Hey, "Debates the Dead" Dude, step right up and tell us how she wasn't wrong. Let's start the debate right here, right now -- if you've got the spine for it.

[jj mollo]

95 percent of the human race is dead. It's hard not to talk about them. Being wrong is not a moral issue, but she was clearly, in hindsight, wrong, wronger and wrongest.

The fact is that there is a market for power. If you don't exercise it, someone else will eat your lunch. If you expend it too fast or conserve it too stingily, you risk losing it altogether. It's all about judgment. You make bad choices, you get punished.

One of the worst errors of judgment is to assume that peacefulness begets peace, that forebearance elicits gentility, that decency engenders mercy. Not happenin'. Everything is negotiated and many entities negotiate for keeps. America's enemies are enemies for a reason. If you look around you can see that we are able to maintain friendly relations with other countries. There are folks out there, though, who just cannot abide us, and they will do to us exactly what we allow them to do. There are the powerhungry who take whatever they can. There are the bloodthirsty who kill whomever they can. They exist. And they usually cannot be appeased by gifts of trinkets and friendly smiles. They make simple calculations based on risk assessment and profit potential. If you have anything at all, you are a target. If you are anything at all, you are a target.

Here's my philosophy on it. The nicest people should have the biggest guns. If you want to make efforts to keep the US in the hands of nice people, make sure that the people stay strong. Unilateral disarmament, in this world, is equivalent to suicide.

[George]

Well said, jj.

[jj mollo]

Thankyou for your support.