No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
With the revolutions in Eastern Europe precipitating a radical transformation of the Cold War which has dominated East-West relations for the past half century, there is a need and an opportunity to examine anew the processes and structures of modern warfare. By constructing a model of the Cold War as an addictive system in which the Americans and the Soviets have cooperated as “nuclear” codependents in the addictive process of the arms race it may be possible to gain a more realistic (dynamic and systemic) understanding of the forces driving global militarism as well as some insights into the dangers which lie ahead as the United States attempts to withdraw and recover from this reality.
1 Gaudium et Spes #80 in Gremillion, Joseph, ed., The Gospel of Peace & Justice (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1976), 317;Google Scholar also see Shannon, Thomas A., What Are They Saying About Peace and War? (New York: Paulist, 1983), 111, 121;Google Scholar and LaRocque, Admiral Gene, “Introduction” in Joseph, Paul and Rosenblum, Simon, eds., Search For Sanity (Boston: South End Press, 1984), xi.Google Scholar
2 Bernardin, Joseph Cardinal, “The Changing Nuclear Debate,” Origins 19 (1990): 631, 633.Google Scholar
3 Much of the analysis in this sections depends upon these works on codependence and addictive systems: Schaef, Anne Wilson and Fassel, Diane, The Addictive Organization (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988);Google ScholarSchaef, Anne Wilson, When Society Becomes an Addict (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987);Google ScholarCarnes, Patrick, Out of the Shadows (Minneapolis: CompCare, 1983);Google Scholar and Beattie, Melody, Codependent No More (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).Google Scholar
4 Among some recent texts examining militarism and war from a systemic perspective are: Falk, Richard and Kim, Samuel, The War System: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980);Google ScholarKeen, Sam, Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986);Google Scholar and Mansfield, Sue, The Gestalts of War (New York: Dial, 1982).Google Scholar
5 Schaef, and Fassel, , The Addictive Organization, 60–61.Google Scholar
6 Caldicott, Helen, Missile Envy: The Arms Race & Nuclear War (New York: Bantam, 1986), 231.Google Scholar
7 Chase, James and Carr, Caleb, America Invulnerable (New York: Summit, 1988), 226–29.Google Scholar
8 Schwartz, Morris, “The Social-Psychological Dimension of the Arms Race” in Search for Sanity, 269.Google Scholar
9 Geiger, Jack, “The Illusion of Survival” in Search for Sanity, 237–44.Google Scholar
10 Yoder, John Howard, When War Is Unjust (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), chaps. 3-6.Google Scholar
11 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1983), #192-93;Google Scholar and Kenny, Anthony, The Logic of Deterrence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 14–16.Google Scholar
12 Paul, John II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, #10 in Myers, Kenneth E., ed., Aspiring to Freedom (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 11–12.Google Scholar
13 Schaef, , When Society Becomes an Addict, 88–90;Google Scholar and Johnson, Vernon E., I'll Quit Tomorrow (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 24–25.Google Scholar
14 Schwartz, , “The Social-Psychological Dimension of the Arms Race,” 268–70;Google Scholar and Keen, , Faces of the Enemy, 72–88.Google Scholar
15 Lifton, Robert Jay, Death in Life (New York: Random House, 1967), 500–10.Google Scholar
16 Chase, and Carr, , American Invulnerable, 302–04, 318–21.Google Scholar
17 Powaski, Ronald E., March to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1939 to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 68–69.Google Scholar
18 Lakoff, Sanford and York, Herbert F., Technology Politics and the Strategic Defense Initiative: How the Reagan Administration Set Out to Make Nuclear Weapons “Impotent and Obsolete” and Succumbed to the Fallacy of the Last Move (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar This text offers an excellent example of the limits of much arms competition thinking. Too often the obvious countermeasures of the opponent have been ignored, leading to unrealistic beliefs about technological solutions.
19 Powaski, , March to Armageddon, 222–27.Google Scholar
20 Wolfe, Alan, “Domestic Sources of the ‘Soviet Threat’” in Search for Sanity, 344–65.Google Scholar
21 Caldicott, , Missile Envy, 32–33;Google Scholar 63-64; 243-45; 47-48.
22 Schaef, and Fassel, , The Addictive Organization, 73.Google Scholar
23 Caldicott, , Missile Envy, 234;Google Scholar and Thompson, E. P., “Beyond the Cold War” in Search for Sanity, 409–12.Google Scholar
24 Caldicott, , Missile Envy, 265.Google Scholar
25 Paul, John II, Sollicitudo Hei Socialis, #20-24 in Aspiring to Freedom, 21–26.Google Scholar
26 Carnes, Patrick, Counseling the Sexual Addict (Minneapolis: CompCare, 1985)Google Scholar, audiocassette #4.
27 Caldicott, , Missile Envy, 235;Google Scholar and Schaef, , When Society Becomes an Addict, 7–12.Google Scholar