Strategic Studies and its Critics
The civilian strategic analysts who now constitute a distinct profession in the Western world have from the first been subject to criticism that has called in question the validity of their methods, their utility to society and even their integrity of purpose.1 Some of it is directed at particular strategists or at particular techniques they employ, but much of it purports to expose deficiencies that are characteristic of the genre. Some of this is of so scurrilous a nature as not to deserve a reply, but some raises issues of real importance. What are in fact the distinguishing features of the new style of strategic analysis? What has given rise to the criticisms that have been made of it? And what substance do the criticisms have?
KeywordsEurope Explosive Expense Military Position Arena
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.James R. Newman, review of Herman Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War, Scientific American, no. 204 (March 1961), pp. 197–8;Google Scholar
- 1.P.M.S. Blackett, Studies of War, Nuclear and Conventional, New York: Hill & Wang, 1962.Google Scholar
- 1.Sir Solly Zuckerman, Scientists and War: The Impact of Science on Military and Civil Affairs, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1967, Chapter 5.Google Scholar
- 1.Irving L. Horowitz, The War Game: Studies of the New Civilian Militarists, New York: Ballantine, 1963.Google Scholar
- 1.Anatol Rapoport, Strategy and Conscience, New York: Harper & Row, 1964.Google Scholar
- 1.Philip Green, Deadly Logic: The Theory of Nuclear Deterrence, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
- 3.Max Teichmann, ‘Strategic Studies or Peace Research?’, Arena (Melbourne), no. 12 (Autumn 1967), pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
- 7.Arthur Lee Burns, ‘Must Strategy and Conscience be Disjoined?’, World Politics, no. 17 (July 1965), pp. 687–702.Google Scholar