Consensus bargaining is most possible over common objectives that can readily be reduced to numerical calculations, like parity, reductions, and greater survivability. Arms control and nuclear weapon strategists will have far more difficulty working on common approaches to broader concepts like strategic stability and the requirements of deterrence where there are no agreed definitions or means of implementation. In general, the more diffuse the objective, the greater the difficulty there can be in bridging differences between the two domestic camps.
KeywordsNuclear Weapon Treaty Provision Tacit Agreement Conventional Force Biological Weapon Convention
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.See Barbara Tuchman, “The American People and Military Power in an Historical Perspective,” Adelphi Papers, No. 173 (Spring, 1982), pp. 5–13.Google Scholar
- 5.Gerard C. Smith, Doubletalk: The Story of the First Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1980 ), p. 99.Google Scholar
- 8.Abram Chayes, “An Inquiry into the Workings of Arms Control Agreements,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85: 905, 1972, p. 968.Google Scholar
- 13.Richard N. Perle, “What Is Adequate Verification?” SALT II and American Security, ( Cambridge: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc., 1980 ), p. 58.Google Scholar
- 14.Richard Perle, “SALT II: Who Is Deceiving Whom?”, Intelligence Policy and National Security, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff et al., eds., (Hamden, Conn: Archon Books, 1981 ), pp. 151–154.Google Scholar
- 17.Michael R. Gordon, “Can Reagan Blow The Whistle On the Russians While Saying No On Salt II?” National Journal, May 7, 1983, pp. 953–57.Google Scholar
- 19.Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton University Press, 1959), p. 266.Google Scholar