Skip to main content
  • 437 Accesses

Abstract

The prescriptive implications of the sort of abstract theorizing discussed in the last chapter were perplexing to many. In one sense they were quite radical in that they suggested a totally new approach to strategy and dealings with a potential enemy. In another sense they were extremely conservative because they took the status quo as a given, and devoted their energies to its preservation. Little hope was offered that the East-West conflict might be resolved either by political or military means. Their analyses yielded neither new ideas on how to achieve a political accommodation with the Soviet Union nor military concepts that opened up the prospect of victory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. C. W. Sherwin, ‘Securing peace through military technology’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist (May 1956). A short piece by Amster entitled ‘Design for deterrence’, was appended. The original Amster study appeared as A Theory for the Design of a Deterrent Air Weapon System (San Diego, Calif.: Convair Corporation, 1955). For evidence of the influence of Amster/Sherwin see Schelling, Strategy of Conflict, p. 7

    Google Scholar 

  2. and Arthur Lee Burns, ‘Disarmament or the balance of terror’, World Politics, xii:1 (October 1959), p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernard Bechhoefer, Postwar Negotiations for Arms Control (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alva Myrdal, The Game of Disarmament: How the United States and Russia Run the Arms Race (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977), p. xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robert Osgood, ‘Stabilizing the military environment’, American Political Science Review, LV:1 (March 1961).

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Malcolm Hoag, ‘On stability in deterrent races’, World Politics, xiii:4 (July 1961), p. 522.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The term is taken from Thomas Murray, Nuclear Policy for War and Peace, (Ohio: World Publishing Co., 1960), p. 28. Murray, a catholic member of the Atomic Energy Commission, attempted more than most others connected with the nuclear programme to inject a moral element into the debate. A discussion of a variety of ethical problems is found in Green, Deadly Logic, chap. 6. Green also provides a useful bibliography. Green’s ideas are discussed, unsympathetically,

    Google Scholar 

  8. in Morton A. Kaplan (ed.), Strategic Thinking and Its Moral Implications (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  9. See also Sydney Bailey, Prohibitions and Restraints in Warfare (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lieutenant-General Sir John Cowley, ‘Future trends in warfare’, Journal of the Royal United Services Institute (February 1960), p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Tail-Safe (London: Hutchinson, 1963);

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sidney Hook, The Tail-Safe Fallacy (New York, Stein & Day, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kenneth E. Boulding, Conflict and Defense: A General Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aaron Wildavsky, ‘Practical consequences of the theoretical study of defence policy’, Public Administration Review, xxv (March 1965). Reprinted in The Revolt Against the Masses (New York: Basic Books, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Robert Jervis, ‘Hypotheses on misperception’, World Politics, xx (April 1968), p. 455.

    Google Scholar 

  16. On the British campaign see Christopher Driver, The Disarmers (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Philip Noel-Baker, The Arms Race (London: John Calder, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leo Szilard, ‘Disarmament and the problem of peace’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, xi:8 (October 1955), p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leo Szilard, ‘How to live with the bomb and survive’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, xvi:2 (February 1960), p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2003 Lawrence Freedman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freedman, L. (2003). Arms Control. In: The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230379435_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics