alea, I would like to excise myself from the "we" thing on assigning credit.
Certainly, closing the deal deserves credit, many many many drop the ball on closing the deal. On closing the deal I credit G first, for making the hard choice, and R and T for being rather gracious essentially going with Gs line that it was an internal Russian decision for the Russians. Many could have mangled that process that unfolded.
but, in assigning credit to what occurred I go with
1. Nixon and detente
2. Carter kicking off the VietNam haze and investing meaningfully in weaponization (essentially, returning to pre-detente policies all of this essenitally a consequence of Afghansistan, and the all too often ignored Olympics boycott which was a real sting). Carter made Pershing II "brick bat" status (highest priority and put nukes on Cruise missiles. Those two things would freek anybody out.
3. Reagan, continuing Carter's weaponization policy with a lean towards fiscal stimulus (B1b back on line, MX dense pack which essentially ignores the military purpose of MX, but creates jobs). And then Reagan for being a flexible human when he met the guy in Iceland and broadly changed his interpretation of world reality in a staggeringly rapid fashion.
R and T kept their eye on the prize, so when the melt-down came about they were rather gracious, on that they were very wise and perfectly suited to the task.
But I give credit to a consistency, thaw when you can (Nixon) which laid the framework for being able to meet and talk reasonably as things moved along, Carter for clarifying the notion that Soviet imperialism was not going to walk its way to the Indian ocean of Persian gulf just because the US was smarting from Viet Nam, and Reagan for closing the deal.
That Thatcher and Reagan were such strong allies certainly helped. I can't speak towards the Labor PMs of the 70s, I know that Callaghan supported PII deployment, which I durably consider to be the single most relevant weapon system to the discussion, and those darn Cruise Missiles).
| 
