The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control | International Organization | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

References

For their comments and insights, I am grateful to the members of the review committee of International Organization; to the other contributors to this special issue, especially Peter Haas and M. J. Peterson; to my colleagues at the Center for Science and International Affairs, especially Joseph Nye; and to Hayward Alker, Stephen Graubard, Joseph Grieco, Ernst Haas, and Thomas Schelling. Research funds were provided by the Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, and by the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1988.

  1. An epistemic community, as defined in this issue of IO, is a network of individuals or groups with an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within their domain of expertise. The community members share knowledge about the causation of social and physical phenomena in an area for which they have a reputation for competence, and they have a common set of normative beliefs about what will benefit human welfare in such a domain. While members are often from a number of different professions and disciplines, they adhere to the following: (1) shared consummatory values and principled beliefs; (2) shared causal beliefs or professional judgment; (3) common notions of validity based on intersubjective, internally defined criteria for validating knowledge; and (4) a common policy project.

  2. Freedman, Lawrence, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983), p. 191.Google ScholarInternational Organization 46, 1, Winter 1992Google Scholar by the World Peace Foundation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  3. See Posvar, Wesley W., “The New Meaning of Arms Control,” Air Force Magazine, 06 1963, p. 38Google Scholar. For another study on intellectuals and nuclear weapons, see Kolkowicz, Roman, “Intellectuals and the Nuclear Deterrence System,” in Kolkowicz, Roman, ed., The Logic of Nuclear Terror (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), pp. 15–46.Google Scholar

  4. Krasner has defined international regimes as “sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors' expectations converge in a given area of international relations.” Whether the regime concept applies to international security, however, has been debated. On the one hand, Jervis and others have argued that the anarchic characteristics of this issue-area tend to lower incentives for cooperation and regime building. On the other hand, Nye has shown that once we take the set of agreements, injunctions, and institutions as forming not just one comprehensive security regime but an incomplete mosaic of partial security regimes, the notion of security regimes makes sense. These partial security regimes have led to the creation of understandings about what it takes to negotiate security agreements, what type of norms and rules can be applied, and how. In some cases, they have helped to institutionalize rules of reciprocity, limit competition, transfer information needed to comply with the agreements, and enhance crisis stability by generating stable expectations, including the expectation that diplomacy and negotiations should not be interrupted in the event of international crises. Taken together, and regardless of their various degrees of success, partial security regimes have amounted to a discreet yet significant effort to limit and control autonomous action in the security area. See Krasner, Stephen, “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987), p. 2;Google ScholarJervis, Robert, “Security Regimes,” in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 173–94;Google Scholar and Nye, Joseph S. Jr, “Nuclear Learning,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 371–402.Google Scholar

  5. Ranger, Robin, Amis and Politics, 1958–1978: As Control in a Changing Political Context (Toronto: Macmillan, 1979).Google Scholar

  6. See Putnam, Robert D., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), p. 434Google Scholar. My approach is further developed in “Cognitive Evolution: A Dynamic Approach for the Study of International Relations and Their Progress,” in Adler, Emanuel and Crawford, Beverly, eds., Progress in Postwar International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 43–88Google Scholar. See also Adler, Emanuel, The Power of Ideology: The Quest for Technological Autonomy in Argentina and Brazil (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987)Google Scholar. For other approaches dealing with the role of ideas in world politics, see Goldstein, Judith, “Ideas, Institutions, and American Trade Policy,” International Organization 42 (Winter 1988), pp. 179–217Google Scholar; Odell, John S., U.S. International Monetary Policy: Markets, Power, and Ideas as Sources of Change (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Ruggie, John G., “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 195–231Google Scholar; and Hall, Peter A., ed., The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. For key structural realist studies, see Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar; and Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

  7. Weber, Steve, “Realism, Detente and Nuclear Weapons,” International Organization 44 (Winter 1990), p. 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  8. The conventional structural analysis refers to the approach outlined by Waltz, in Theory of International PoliticsGoogle Scholar. According to Weber, the new structural organizing principle “follows from joint custodianship, a function that was acquired by the United States and Soviet Union and which fundamentally differentiates them from other states.” See Weber, , “Realism, Detente and Nuclear Weapons,” p. 77.Google Scholar

  9. Structuration theory, as defined by Wendt, is “a relational solution to the agent-structure problem that conceptualizes agents and structures as mutually constituted or co-determined entities.” See Wendt, Alexander E., “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” international Organization 41 (Summer 1987), p. 350Google Scholar. See also Giddens, Anthony, Central Problems in Social Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979)Google Scholar; and Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).Google Scholar

  10. Weber, , “Realism, Detente and Nuclear Weapons,” p. 69.Google Scholar

  11. This framework is partly inspired by Stephen Toulmin's discussion in Human Understanding (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 122–23.Google ScholarPubMed

  12. Rotblat, J., History of the Pugwash Conferences (London: Taylor & Francis, 1962).Google Scholar

  13. Ruggie, John G., “Changing Frameworks of International Collective Behavior: On the Complementarity of Contradictory Tendencies,” in Choucri, Nazli and Robinson, Thomas W., eds., Forecasting in International Relations: Theory, Methods, Problems, Prospects (San Francisco: Freeman, 1978), p. 403.Google Scholar

  14. Brenner, Michael J., “The Theorist as Actor, the Actor as Theorist: Strategy in the Nixon Administration,” Stanford Journal of International Studies 7 (Spring 1972), pp. 109–10.Google Scholar

  15. See Posvar, Wesley W., “The Impact of Strategy Expertise on the National Security Policy of the United States,” Public Policy, vol. 13, 1964, p. 39Google Scholar. See also Gowing, Margaret, “An Old and Intimate Relationship,” in Bogdanor, Vernon, ed., Science and Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 68Google Scholar. According to Gowing, “The scientists of the atomic era indeed became acutely conscious of phenomena which rule political life: the conflict of desires and aims, the conflict between the interests of different generations, the difficulty of calculating consequences. In the years of their ascendency they proved that they were not all-wise nor indeed all-wicked but infinitely human. They could change their minds with devastating speed. They could be both wise and foolish, both myopic and far-sighted, both judicious and ridiculous, both clear-headed and muddled. They turned out to be, indeed remarkably like the politicians.”

  16. See Posvar, , “The Impact of Strategy Expertise on the National Security Policy of the United States,” p. 40Google Scholar. See also Garnett, John, “Strategic Studies and Its Assumptions,” in Baylis, John et al. , eds., Contemporary Strategy (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1987).Google Scholar

  17. Reynolds, Charles, The Politics of War: A Study of the Rationality of Violence in International Relations (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989), p. 28.Google Scholar

  18. I owe this insight to Hayward Alker. On the nonscientific basis of strategy, see Reynolds, , The Politics of War;Google Scholar and Skolnikoff, Eugene B., Science, Technology and American Foreign Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1967), p. 110.Google Scholar

  19. Wildavsky, Aaron, “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation,” American Political Science Review 81 (03 1987), p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  20. Probably the most succinct and best exposition of Schelling's arms control theory is “Reciprocal Measures for Arms Stabilization,” in Brennan, Donald G., ed., Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security (New York: Brazillier, 1961), pp. 167–86.Google Scholar

  21. These two communities have been the most, though certainly not the only, influential ones from a policy point of view in the nuclear debate. Also involved were communities that strove for nuclear abolition and total disarmament and for solving the nuclear predicament through international institutions and world government. See Levine, Robert A., The Arms Debate (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Herzog, Arthur, The War-Peace Establishment (New York: Harper & Row, 1965)Google Scholar; and Osgood, Robert E., The Nuclear Dilemma in American Strategic Thought (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988)Google Scholar. For example, the peace movement, institutionally represented by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), promoted a vision of peace radically different from that of the arms controllers. On some occasions, however, SANE came to the help of arms control. And the peace movement also played a significant role in efforts to set aside disarmament ideas and make room for arms control during the period when scientists who were generally favorable to disarmament agreed nevertheless to support arms control as a temporary measure. On SANE, see Katz, Milton S., Ban the Bomb: A History of SANE, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, 1957–1985 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986).Google Scholar

  22. Brodie augured this approach, arguing (for the wrong reasons, as it later emerged) that nuclear weapons should be used only to deter the adversary. In what is probably the most quoted sentence in the field of national security, Brodie summarized the message of his book: “Thus far, the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on, its chief purpose must be to avert them. It can have no other useful purpose.” See Brodie, Bernard, The Absolute Weapon (New York: Hartcourt Brace, 1946), p. 76Google Scholar. See also Levine, , The Amts Debate, p. 240.Google Scholar

  23. Jervis, Robert, “Arms Control, Stability, and Causes of War,” Daedalus 120 (Winter 1991), p. 172.Google Scholar

  24. Borden's, WilliamThere Will Be No Time (New York: Macmillan, 1946)Google Scholar also made early references to the usability of nuclear weapons in war, to the expectation that nuclear wars could be won, and to counterforce targeting, active defenses, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM s). Borden did not expect nuclear weapons to revolutionize strategy; he expected them only to reinforce some of the oldest and most classic elements of strategy. Believing that the nuclear adversaries would spare each other's cities because of their vulnerability, Borden expected that nuclear weapons would be used against military installations. See Jervis, Robert, “Strategic Theory: What's New and What's True,” in Kolkowicz, The Logic of Nuclear Terror, p. 48;Google Scholar and Levine, , The Arms Debate, p. 240.Google Scholar

  25. Jervis, , “Arms Control, Stability, and Causes of War,” p. 173.Google Scholar

  26. Posvar, , “The New Meaning of Arms Control,” pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

  27. Thomas Schelling, personal communication.

  28. Hornig, Donald F., “Science and Government in the USA,” in Brooks, Harvey and Cooper, Chester L., eds., Science for Public Policy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1987), p. 20.Google Scholar

  29. Posvar, , “The Impact of Strategy Expertise on the National Security Policy of the United States,” p. 49.Google Scholar

  30. See Talbott, Strobe, The Master of the Game: Paul Nitze and the Nuclear Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988).Google Scholar

  31. Sims, Jennifer E., “The Development of American Arms Control Thought, 1945–1960,” Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., 1985, p. 284.Google Scholar

  32. Kaplan, Fred, Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), pp. 123–24.Google Scholar

  33. Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. vi.Google Scholar

  34. See Neumann, John von and Morgenstern, Oscar, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2d ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1947).Google Scholar

  35. The economists tended to treat strategic problems in a formal, detached, and almost apolitical manner. This approach elicited a strong reaction and even led some writers to portray the nuclear strategists as lesser human beings. See, for example, Rapoport, Anatol, Strategy and Conscience (New York: Harper & Row, 1964)Google Scholar; Lapp, Ralph, The New Priesthood: The Scientific Elite and the Uses of Power (New York: Harper & Row, 1965)Google Scholar; and Horowitz, Irving L., The War Game: Studies of the New Civilian Militarists (New York: Ballantine Books, 1963).Google Scholar

  36. Schelling, Thomas, cited by Herzog in The War-Peace Establishment, p. 49.Google Scholar

  37. Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” p. 286.Google Scholar

  38. Twenty or more physicists were recruited from MIT to participate in Project Charles and work on continental air defense. The project's product was a three-volume report which concluded that a defense of the United States against Soviet bombers was feasible and should be undertaken promptly. Project Vista dealt with the nonnuclear defense of Europe. See Herken, Gregg, Counsels of War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 61, 63, and 65.Google Scholar

  39. Experience in one of the major wartime laboratories, especially the MIT Radiation Laboratory and the Laboratories of the Manhattan Project, or an apprenticeship with one or more of the military “summer studies” still appears to be a useful qualification for scientific advising. See Herken, , Counsels of War, pp. 116–21;Google Scholar and Jacobson, Harold K. and Stein, Eric, Diplomats, Scientists and Politicians: The United States and the Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966).Google Scholar

  40. Wiesner, Jerome B., Where Science and Politics Meet (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 176.Google Scholar

  41. Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” pp. 303–4.Google Scholar

  42. On the question of whether nuclear strategy is a profession, see Licklider, E., The Private Nuclear Strategists (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1971), chap. 7Google Scholar. See also Posvar, Wesley, ‘trategy Expertise and National Security,” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1964.Google Scholar

  43. Licklider, , The Private Nuclear Strategists, pp. 119–22, 130, and 135.Google Scholar

  44. See Price, Don K., The Scientific Estate (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1965)Google Scholar. See also Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher, eds., Scientists and National Policy Making (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

  45. For a discussion of the group and a description of the RAND Corporation, see Kaplan, , Wizards of Armageddon, especially pp. 51–73Google Scholar. See also Dickson, Paul, Think-Tanks (New York: Atheneum, 1971).Google Scholar

  46. Wohlstetter was a logician-mathematician at RAND. His studies prompted two important reports, R-266 and R-290, dealing with the vulnerability of bombers and the vulnerability of ballistic missiles, respectively. These studies expressed the triumph of quantitative economics oriented study at RAND. As Kaplan noted, “Through Wohlstetter's own personal influence within RAND, vulnerability began to loom as the preoccupying issue, the virtual obsession, of strategic analysis.” See Kaplan, , Wizards of Armageddon, pp. 121–22.Google Scholar

  47. Bundy recently characterized the 1955 report as “one of the most influential in the history of American nuclear policy.” See Bundy, McGeorge, Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years (New York: Random House, 1988), p. 325.Google Scholar

  48. For a discussion of the Gaither Committee report and its influence, see Halperin, Morton, “The Gaither Committee and the Policy Process,” World Politics 13 (04 1961), especially pp. 382–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  49. Killian, James R. Jr, Sputnik, Scientists and Eisenhower (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977), p. 7.Google Scholar

  50. The members of the first PSAC were Robert Bacher, William Baker, Hoyd Berkner, Hans Bethe, Detler Bronk, James Doolittle, James Fisk, Caryl Haskins, James R. Killian, George Kistiakowsky, Edwin Land, Emanuel Piore, Edward Purcell, Isador Rabi, H. P. Robertson, Jerome Wiesner, Herbert York, and Jerrold Zacharias. On the PSAC, see Killian, , Sputnik, Scientists and Eisenhower, pp. 107–217.Google Scholar

  51. In Counsels of War, p. 116Google Scholar, Herken quotes Eisenhower's reaction to the idea of a nuclear war: “You can't have this kind of war; there just aren't enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets.”

  52. Spurgeon Keeny, cited by Herken, in Counsels of War, p. 117Google Scholar. Jerome Wiesner, another community member, offered the following view: “I first became involved in the disarmament problem as a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee. Prior to that I had been the Staff Director of the Gaither Study. The conclusions of this study convinced me that it was not really feasible to protect the American people if a global nuclear war occurred, and that both the Russians and ourselves would suffer terribly. In fact, I became convinced that as long as the Soviet Union was prepared, as it seemed to be, to attempt to match our military effort, there was no help of avoiding an enormous loss of life in the event of a major nuclear war, regardless of the magnitude of our defense effort” (emphasis added). See Wiesner, , Where Science and Politics Meet, p. 174.Google Scholar

  53. Davis, Saville R., “Recent Policy Making in the United States Government,” in Brennan, Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security, p. 385.Google Scholar

  54. See Holst, Johan J., “Strategic Arms Control and Stability: A Retrospective Look,” in Holst, Johan J. and Schneider, William, eds., Why ABM: Policy Issues in the Missile Defense Controversy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1969), p. 282Google Scholar. On the test ban conference, see Strickland, Donald A., “Scientists as Negotiators: The 1958 Geneva Conference of Experts,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (11 1964), pp. 372–84.Google Scholar

  55. Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” p. 302.Google Scholar

  56. See Holst, , “Strategic Arms Control and Stability,’ p. 268Google Scholar. “The Westerners,” observed Holst, , “frequently voiced the expectation that they should be able to convince the Easterners by logical argument” (p. 263)Google Scholar. Regarding the Soviet reaction to the American technical approach, see p. 260.Google Scholar

  57. See Bechhoefer, Bernard G., Postwar Negotiations for Arms Control (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1961), p. 475Google Scholar. See also Holst, , “Strategic Arms Control and Stability,” pp. 261 and 282.Google Scholar

  58. Sims, “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” chap. 5.

  59. In fact, the majority of the “brass” thought these theories to be quite “odd,” since “it seemed to follow [from the theories] that Soviet forces should perhaps not even be targeted, and maybe American cities should not be defended, even if a defense of populations some day became feasible. For if the vulnerability of our forces made us more trigger-happy and was thus a danger to them, then by the same logic their vulnerability was a danger to us: we should therefore not threaten their strategic forces, either directly, by targeting them, or indirectly, by defending our cities and thus effectively neutralizing them.” See Trachtenberg, Marc, “Strategic Thought in America, 1952–1966,” in Trachtenberg, Marc, ed., The Development of American Strategic Thought: Writings on Strategy 1961–1969 and Retrospectives (New York: Garland, 1988), p. 456.Google Scholar

  60. See Freedman, , The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, p. 197Google Scholar. The most comprehensive study to date on the intellectual basis of arms control is Sims's “The Development of American Arms Control Thought.” This section builds substantially on her study.

  61. See Bull, Hedley, The Control of the Arms Race (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1961)Google Scholar; and Bull, Hedley, Hedley Bull on Arms Control, selected and introduced by Robert O'Neill and David N. Schwartz (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987).Google Scholar

  62. Cousins, Norman, “Foreword,” in Hawkins, Helen S., Greb, G. Allen, and Szilard, Gertrud Weiss, eds., Toward a Livable World: Leo Szilard and the Crusade for Nuclear Arms Control (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987), p. xii.Google Scholar

  63. See Berenstein, Barton J., “Introduction,” in Hawkins, Greb, and Szilard, Toward a Livable World, pp. xvii–xxiv;Google Scholar and Szilard, Leo, “Shall We Face the Facts? An Appeal for a Truce Not a Peace,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 5 (05 1949), pp. 269–73Google Scholar. See also Counsels of War, p. 206Google Scholar, in which Herken discusses the doomsday machine, a fanciful device to ensure peace by blowing up the world as the penalty for aggression.

  64. See Shils, Edward, “American Policy and the Soviet Policy Ruling Group,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 3 (09 1947), pp. 237–39;Google Scholar and Fox, William T. R., “Atomic Energy and International Control,” in Ogburn, William F., ed., Technology and International Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), pp. 102–25Google Scholar. See also Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” pp. 228 and 308Google Scholar. The Acheson-Lilienthal report is cited as U.S. Department of State, Committee on Atomic Energy, A Report on the International Control of Atomic Energy, 03 1946.Google Scholar In Danger and Survival, p. 159Google Scholar, Bundy described this report as “the high water-mark of the American effort to grapple with the issue of international control.” See also Bundy, McGeorge, “Early Thoughts on Controlling the Nuclear Arms Race: A Report to the Secretary of State, January 1953,” International Security 7 (Fall 1982), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

  65. See Gilpin, Robert, American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962), chap. 4Google Scholar. See also Bechhoefer, , Postwar Negotiations for As Control, parts 2 and 3.Google Scholar

  66. See Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 5th ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)Google Scholar; Morgenthau, Hans J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946)Google Scholar; Niebuhr, Reinhold, “The Illusion of World Government,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 5 (10 1949), p. 289;Google Scholar and Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Structure of Nations and Empires (New York: Scribner)Google Scholar

  67. See Inglis, David R. and Flanders, Donald A., “A Deal Before Midnight,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 7 (10 1951), pp. 305–6 and 317;Google ScholarNewman, James R., “Toward Atomic Agreement,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 10 (04 1954), pp. 121–22;Google ScholarInglis, David R., “Ban the H-Bomb and Favor the Defense,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 10 (11 1954), pp. 353–56;Google Scholar and Hart, Hornell, “The Remedies Versus the Menace,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 10 (06 1954), pp. 197–205.Google Scholar

  68. See Meier, R. L., “Beyond Atomic Stalemate,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 12 (05 1956), pp. 147–53;Google ScholarSherwin, C. W., “Securing Peace Through Military Technology,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 12 (05 1956), pp. 159–64;Google ScholarAmster, Warren, “Design for Deterrence,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 12 (05 1956), pp. 164–65;Google Scholar and Sims, Jennifer, “The American Approach to Nuclear Arms Control: A Retrospective,” Daedalus 120 (Winter 1991), p. 258.Google Scholar

  69. See Rotblat, , History of the Pugwash Conferences;Google ScholarRotblat, Joseph, “Movements of Scientists Against the Arms Race,” in Rotblat, Joseph, ed., Scientists, the Arms Race and Disarmament (London: Taylor & Francis, 1982), pp. 115–57.Google Scholar

  70. Schelling, Thomas, cited by Herzog in The War-Peace Establishment, p. 52.Google Scholar

  71. Rotblat, , History of the Pugwash Conferences, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

  72. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), p. 301.Google Scholar

  73. See Bechhoefer, , Postwar Negotiations for Arms Control, part 2;Google Scholar and Bundy, , Danger and Survival, chap. 4. In 06 1946Google Scholar, Bernard Baruch, the U.S. negotiator at the United Nations, proposed the following plan for the international control of nuclear energy: the United States would place its entire atomic weapons production under an international authority, and other nations would be barred from producing nuclear weapons and would allow their facilities to be placed under the international authority. The plan also promoted the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

  74. Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” p. 244.Google Scholar

  75. Dulles supported arms control only on the condition that the price was right and that American prestige abroad would be enhanced.

  76. By developing plans for air reconnaissance, a nuclear freeze, nuclear arms reductions, and a set of objectives for arms control, Stassen augured the “golden era of arms control.”

  77. Freedman, , The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, p. 199.Google Scholar

  78. See Schelling, Thomas and Halperin, Morton, Strategy and Arms Control, 2d ed. (New York: Pergamon-Brassey, 1985)Google Scholar; Brennan, , Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security;Google ScholarBull, , The Control of the Arms Race;Google ScholarHenkin, Louis, ed., Arms Control: Issues for the Public (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961)Google Scholar; Frisch, David H., ed., Arms Reduction: Program and Issues (New York: Twentieth Century, 1961)Google Scholar; and Lefever, Ernst W., ed., Arms and Arms Control (New York: Praeger, 1962)Google Scholar. See also Ranger, Robin, “The Four Bibles of Arms Control,” in Shepard, Susan J., ed., Books and the Pursuit of American Foreign Policy, special issue of Book Forum, vol. 6, 1984, pp. 416–32.Google Scholar

  79. See Holton, Gerald, ed., Arms Control, special issue of Daedalus, published in Fall 1960 and issued as vol. 89, no. 4Google Scholar, of the Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The impact of the special Daedalus issue on arms control was so great that a revised and enlarged edition was rushed into print in early 1961. After this printing of 20,000 copies was sold out, it went into a second printing. Such sales were unprecedented for a specialized work of this kind. See Ranger, , “The Four Bibles of Arms Control,” pp. 417–18.Google Scholar

  80. See Schelling, Thomas C., “What Went Wrong with Arms Control,” Foreign Affairs 65 (Winter 1985–1986), p. 223Google Scholar. Schelling had made the following statement in 1969: “Whatever the prospects for successful negotiations with the Soviet Union during the coming months and years, on the subject of strategic weapons, there could not be a greater contrast between the serious and businesslike prospects for realistic negotiations in 1969 and all the fantasy and pretense about ‘general and complete disarmament’ that characterized the beginning of our decade… We think differently now, partly because technological progress obliges us to but partly because we have been thinking and talking and writing and holding hearings and preparing budget justifications and negotiating with allies and enemies during this past decade.… [The] concern with vulnerability of retaliatory systems … became the primary criterion for the selection of a weapons system itself [and] it has become also the primary criterion for the design of an arms agreement between the United States and the USSR … The problem of ‘accidental war’ was recognized to be primarily one of information and decision rather than sheer mechanical accident, [and the] tradition of non-use, the somewhat self confirming expectations of non-use, grows stronger every year.” See testimony of Thomas Schelling, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Strategy and Science: Toward a National Security Policy for the 1970s: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments, 91st Congress, 1st sess., 03 1969, pp. 123–24.Google Scholar

  81. Gray, Colin S., Strategic Studies and Public Policy: The American Experience (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1982), p. 26.Google Scholar

  82. According to Gray, “Contemporary arms-control theory was an invention of the strategic studies community in the period 1958–60.” See ibid., p. 72.

  83. Firestone notes that the Committee of Principals was “a high-level interagency group designed to coordinate and ultimately ratify arms control policy. Founded in August 1958, the committee was initially composed of the secretary of state as chairman, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission], the director of the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], and the president's special adviser on science and technology.” See Firestone, Bernard J., The Quest for Nuclear Stability: John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982), p. 76.Google Scholar

  84. Licklider, , The Private Nuclear Strategists, p. 155.Google Scholar

  85. Schlesinger, , A Thousand Days, p. 104;Google Scholar and Kaufmann, William W., The McNamara Strategy (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 1.Google Scholar

  86. Firestone, , The Quest for Nuclear Stability, p. 153.Google Scholar

  87. See Weber, Steve and Drell, Sidney, “Attempts to Regulate Military Activities in Space,” in George, Alexander L., Farley, Philip J., and Dallin, Alexander, eds., U.S.-Soviet Security Cooperation: Achievements, Failures, Lessons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 388Google Scholar. On ACDA, see Walker, Paul F., “The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency: Policy-Making in Strategic Arms Limitations,” Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar

  88. York, Herbert F., Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A Physicist's Odyssey from Hiroshima to Geneva (New York: Basic Books, 1987), p. 119.Google Scholar

  89. Ball, Desmond, Politics and Force Levels: The Strategic Missile Program of the Kennedy Administration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 82–85.Google Scholar

  90. My discussion of the hotline idea is based on Ury's, William L.Beyond the Hotline: How Crisis Control Can Prevent Nuclear War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985), pp. 142 and 44, and on interviews.Google Scholar

  91. See Adler, , The Power of IdeologyGoogle Scholar. See also Hyland, William L., “Institutional Impediments,” in Burt, Richard, ed., Arms Control and Defense in the 1980s (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982), p. 101.Google Scholar

  92. Newhouse, John, Cold Down: The Story of SALT (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973), p. 69.Google Scholar

  93. In Counsels of War, pp. 197–98Google Scholar, Herken quotes some of McNamara's concerns: “There is a kind of mad momentum intrinsic to the development of all nuclear weaponry.… If a system works-and works well-there is a strong pressure from all directions to procure and deploy the weapon out of all proportion to the prudent level required.” Herken points out that what McNamara termed “an action-reaction phenomenon” dominated and escalated the arms race.

  94. In November 1964, the Soviets first paraded what appeared to be an ABM system. The system, called Galosh, “was believed to be composed of a network of radars and a two- or three-stage, solid-fueled interceptor missile designed for long-range, ex-atmospheric interception of incoming ICBM s.” See Yanarella, Ernst J., The Missile Defense Controversy: Strategy, Technolog, and Politics, 1955–1972 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1977), p. 118.Google Scholar

  95. On the politics of ABM control up to 1972, see Yanarella, , The Missile Defense Controversy;Google ScholarAdams, Benson D., Ballistic Missile Defense (New York: American Elsevier, 1971)Google Scholar; Halperin, Morton, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1974)Google Scholar; Newhouse, , Cold Down;Google ScholarSmith, Gerard, The Story of SALT, 2d ed. (New York: Pergamon-Brassey, 1989)Google Scholar; Kaplan, , Wizards ofArmageddon;Google Scholar and Herken, , Counsels of War.Google Scholar

  96. See Schwartz, David N., “Past and Present: The Historical Legacy,” in Carter, Ashton B. and Schwartz, David N., eds., Ballistic Missile Defense (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1984), pp. 332–33.Google Scholar

  97. For a discussion of Wiesner and York's article, see Herken, , Counsels of War, p. 193Google Scholar. Herken notes that Paul Nitze called the article “outrageous, an incitement, an example of dirty pool.”

  98. Sentinel was a light area missile defense system set to be deployed in fifteen sites in the continental United States, one site in Hawaii, and one in Alaska. The system consisted of various radars and either a Spartan missile or a Sprint missile, depending on the site. See Adams, , Ballistic Missile Defense, p. 177.Google Scholar

  99. Yanarella, , The Missile Defense Controversy, pp. 144–47.Google Scholar

  100. Kahn said that the public debate had been one-sided because about “ninety percent of the scientists who normally speak in public, or who consult part-time for the government on defense issues, as well as the vast preponderance of the public literature on the subject, opposed ABM.” See Herman, Kahn, “The Missile Defense Debate in Perspective,” in Holst and Schneider, Why ABM, p. 285Google Scholar. For a good source on the involvement of pro- and anti- ABM scientists in the ABM debate, see Cahn, Anne Hessing, Eggheads and Warheads: Scientists and the ABM (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for International Studies, 1971)Google Scholar. In the “battle of books,” the counterpart to Why ABM was the anti-ABM work edited by Chayes, Abram and Wiesner, Jerome B., ABM: An Evaluation of the Decision to Deploy an Antiballistic Missile System (New York: Signet, 1969).Google Scholar

  101. Safeguard incorporated both area and terminal defense capabilities, using the same components as Sentinel but deploying these components with the aim of defending Minuteman silos. For command and control reasons, Washington, D.C., would be defended as well. Adams, , Ballistic Missile Defense, p. 200.Google Scholar

  102. According to Brenner, “Each testimony [before Congress] delineated the technical and political aspects of the issue while assiduously drawing the necessary distinctions between those questions amenable to scientific judgment and those requiring subjective estimates. By stipulating the logical connections between acceptance of ABM and its multiple consequences, these analyses heightened awareness of the issue's subtle interdependencies. They discredited the Administration's casual use of the syllogistic argument that in the past had relied successfully on faith (in the simple equation that more arms means more security) and fear (of Soviet aggression).” See Brenner, , “The Theorist as Actor,” pp. 115–16.Google Scholar

  103. Sims, , “The Development of American Arms Control Thought,” pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

  104. Firestone, , The Quest for Nuclear Stability, p. 150.Google Scholar

  105. See testimony of Marshal Shulman, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Strategic and Foreign Policy Implications of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Organization and Disarmament Affairs, part 1, 91st Congress, 1st sess., 03 1969, p. 154Google Scholar. See also the testimony of Vincent Rock, P., in U.S. Congress, Strategy and Science: Hearings, p. 224Google Scholar, which included the following argument: “In terms of aid, in terms of weapons … there is a great deal of copying, of action and reaction, reciprocal action of a kind, between the nations of the world. … As we know, all nations collect each other's basic and applied scientific output. There is a tremendous interaction going on as a result of having to read and cope with the ideas the other fellow is putting out.…

  106. The Soviet-American Disarmament Studies Group, referred to as the Doty group, started to meet in 1965 and met for ten years. The first conference of the Darmouth group took place in 1959. An official collaboration between the American and Soviet academies of sciences has taken place under the guidance of W. Panofsky and S. Sagdeev.

  107. Clemens, Walter C. Jr, Can Russia Change? The USSR Confronts Global Interdependence (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990), p. 67.Google Scholar

  108. Holst, , “Strategic Arms Control and Stability,” pp. 258, 264, and 268.Google Scholar

  109. The Soviet views were cited by Allyn, Bruce J. in “Toward a Common Framework: Avoiding Inadvertent War and Crisis,” in Allison, Graham T. and Ury, William L. (with Bruce J. Allyn), eds., Windows of Opportunity: From Cold War to Peaceful Competition in US-Soviet Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1989), p. 188.Google Scholar

  110. Holst, , “Strategic Arms Control and Stability,” p. 282.Google Scholar

  111. See Allyn, , “Toward a Common Framework,” p. 188;Google Scholar and Gaddis, John L., The Long Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 204.Google Scholar

  112. See Stein, Peter and Feaver, Peter, Assuring Control of Nuclear Weapons: The Evolution of Permissive Action Links (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Center for Science and International Affairs, 1987).Google Scholar

  113. See Ranger, , Arms and Politics, p. 7Google Scholar. Dinerstein and his colleagues at RAND noted in the early 1960s that the technical arms control approach seemed to hold no interest for Soviet military planners. According to Dougherty, however, “Some change was noticeable after the Cuban missile crisis. … During the past decade [1963–1973], there have been signs that the Soviets have begun to take more seriously the Western ideas of ‘arms control.’ “ See Dinerstein, Herbert S., Goure, Leon, and Wolfe, Thomas W., “Introduction” to the English translation of Soviet Military Strategy, ed. by Sokolovskiy, Soviet marshal V. D. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 77;Google Scholar and Dougherty, James E., How to Think About Arms Control and Disarmament (New York: Crane, Russak, 1973), p. 71.Google Scholar

  114. Payne, Samuel B., The Soviet Union and SALT (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1980), p. 75.Google Scholar

  115. See Mandelbaum, Michael, “Western Influence on the Soviet Union,” in Bialer, Seweryn and Mandelbaum, Michael, eds., Gorbachev's Russia and American Foreign Policy (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988), p. 364;Google ScholarHolst, , “Strategic Arms Control and Stability,” p. 245;Google Scholar and Yanarella, , The Missile Defense Controversy, pp. 197–98.Google Scholar

  116. Hippel, Frank von, “Arms Control Physics: The New Soviet Connection,” Physics Today, 11 1989, p. 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  117. See York, , Making Weapons, Talking Peace, p. 223;Google ScholarRuina, J. P. and Gell-Mann, M., “Ballistic Missile Defense and the Arms Race,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Udaipur, India, 27 01 to 1 02 1964, pp. 232–35;Google ScholarHippel, Von, “Arms Control Physics,” p. 39;Google Scholar and Doty, Paul, “Arms Control: 1960, 1990, 2020,” Daedalus 120 (Winter 1991), p. 40.Google Scholar

  118. Regarding the Soviet reactions, see Newhouse, , Cold Down, p. 102.Google Scholar

  119. Holloway, David, The Soviet Union and the Arms Race, 2d ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 44.Google Scholar

  120. See MccGwire, Michael, “Why the Soviets Are Serious About Arms Control,” Brookings Review, Spring 1987, p. 11Google Scholar. In a review of MccGwire's book, Military Objectives in Soviet Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1987)Google Scholar, Bluth argued that the changes which MccGwire said occurred at the end of 1966 actually started in 1964 and 1965. Bluth's point was indeed proved by a flurry of Soviet articles discussing the possibility of doctrinal change in the 1964–65 period. See Bluth, Christopher, “The Evolution of Soviet Military Doctrine,” Survival 30 (03–04 1988), p. 149.Google Scholar

  121. Arbatov, Georgi A. and Oltman, William, Soviet Viewpoint (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1981), p. 130.Google Scholar

  122. Andrei Kokoshin, personal communication.

  123. See ibid., p. 126. Larionov, V. V. made the statement in “Transformatsüa kontseptsii ‘strategicheskoi dostatochnosti,’“ SShA, 11 1971Google Scholar. Gromyko later made this same point, as did the minister of foreign affairs. It was almost an official statement of the Soviet government's position.

  124. Payne, , The Soviet Union and SALT, pp. 40–41, 47, and 76.Google Scholar

  125. Other reasons that led the Soviet leaders to sign a Soviet–U.S. strategic arms control treaty included the following: they perceived that the Americans held a strong edge in the technological race; they realized that multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV s) were entering into the strategic equation; they wanted to institutionalize parity with the United States and, if possible, improve their strategic situation in areas unrestricted by SALT; they wanted to project power; they wished to strengthen detente with the West; and they hoped that the resulting economic savings could be directed back to the civilian sector.

  126. See Garthoff, Raymond L., “Mutual Deterrence and Strategic Arms Limitation in Soviet Policy,” International Security 2 (Summer 1978), p. 126;Google Scholar and Halperin, Morton, “The Decision to Deploy the ABM: Bureaucratic and Domestic Politics in the Johnson Administration,” World Politics 25 (10 1972), p. 95.Google Scholar

  127. The faces refer to complementary and mutually reinforcing processes. They are ideal types, and “the distinction between ‘faces’ tends to break down at the margin.” See James, Scott C. and Lake, David A., “The Second Face of Hegemony: Britain's Repeal of the Corn Laws and the American Walker Tariff of 1846,” International Organization 43 (Winter 1989), p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  128. Warner, Edward L. III, “New Thinking and Old Realities in Soviet Defence Policy,” Survival 31 (01–02 1989), pp. 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  129. Jervis, Robert, “Realism, Game Theory, and Cooperation,” World Politics 40 (04 1988), p. 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  130. This awareness of the value of cooperation for national security was essential. According to Davis, “As the naive type of unsafeguarded arms control of the 1920's became clearly inappropriate to the problems of the next three decades, there developed a relatively harmless tradition in politics of paying it lip service, so as not to offend the gentler elements of public opinion, and of ignoring it in practice. This tradition of the white lie [was] carried over into the nuclear age. … For several critical years the habit of pretending to work for disarmament served to mask the fact that the political leadership of the United States did not want disarmament. More specifically, those in Washington who considered arms control undesirable or impractical clearly had the upper hand in the process of making and administering policy, with the help of others who thought the Russians would never sign anyway, or would sign and cheat.” See Davis, , “Recent Policy Making in the United States Government,” pp. 379–80.Google Scholar

  131. Walker, , “The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,” p. 13.Google Scholar

  132. Gilpin, , American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy, p. 299.Google Scholar

  133. See Holloway, , The Soviet Union and the As Race, p. 40.Google Scholar

  134. Garthoff, Raymond L., “On Mutual Deterrence: A Reply to Donald Brennan,” International Security 3 (Spring 1979), p. 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

  135. Weber, , “Realism, Detente and Nuclear Weapons,” p. 72.Google Scholar

  136. Nardin, Terry, Law, Morality, and the Relations of States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 14.Google Scholar

  137. I owe this insight to Craig Murphy. See Murphy, Craig N., “Color It Mitrany: Two Patterns of Progress in International Relations,” working paper, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass., 1989.Google Scholar

  138. Nardin, , Law, Morality, and the Relations of States, p. 9.Google Scholar

  139. See Stein, Arthur A., “Coordination and Collaboration: Regimes in an Anarchic World,” in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 125–27.Google Scholar

  140. See Smith, Roger K., “Explaining the Nonproliferation Regime: Anomalies for Contemporary International Relations Theory,” International Organization 41 (Spring 1987), pp. 253–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar