Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:00:14.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facts and Morals in the Arms Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Robert A. Levine
Robert A. Levine
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access

Extract

Of the several public dialogues currently being carried on in the United States, the controversy over military strength and disarmament may be both the most important and the most confusing. Its importance is obvious; it is an interesting commentary on the vital nature of armament-disarmament policy that the literature in the field is burgeoning almost as fast as the literature about the Civil War on its 100th anniversary. But, if the importance is obvious, the confusion is becoming equally so.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , January 1962 , pp. 239 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 American Friends Service Committee, Speak Truth to Power, Philadelphia, 1955, p. 68.Google Scholar

2 Kahn, Herman, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, N.J., 1960, pp. 559–60.Google Scholar

3 Newman, James R., “Two Discussions of Thermonuclear War,” Scientific American, CCIV (March 1961), pp. 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Warren Weaver, Testimony recorded in Senate of the United States, Control and Reduction of Armaments, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Par. 12, January 16–17, 1957, p. 1145.Google Scholar

5 Congress of the United States, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, Summary-Analysis of Hearings, June 22–26, 1959 (Washington, D.C., G.P.O., August 1959), p. 5.Google Scholar

6 Pauling, Linus, No More Warl, New York, 1958, p. 141.Google Scholar

7 Lapp, Ralph E., “Nuclear War,” in Fowler, John M., ed., Fallout, New York, 1960, p. 172.Google Scholar

8 New YorK Times, March 20, 1960, p. 51.

9 Cannell, Rogers, “The Active Role of Passive Defense,” SRI Journal, III (Fourth Quarter, 1959), p. 182.Google Scholar

10 Fowler, John M., “National Survival,” in Fallout, op.cit., p. 185.Google Scholar

11 Chet Holifield, “Civil Defense,” in ibid., p. 130.

12 Quoted in New York Times, May 26, 1961, p. 12.

13 Cousins, Norman, “The Fallacy of the Deterrent,” Saturday Review, April 16, 1960, p. 28.Google Scholar

14 The unilateral taking of small steps toward disarmament in hope of Soviet reciprocation, as is suggested by Charles Osgood and others, is quite different, although it too is sometimes called “unilateral disarmament.”

15 Kahn, Herman, Testimony recorded in Congress of the United States, Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, June 22–26, 1959, p. 910.Google Scholar

16 Fromm, Erich, “The Case for Unilateral Disarmament,” in Daedalus, Special Issue on Arms Control, Fall 1960, pp. 1018–19.Google Scholar

17 Kissinger, Henry, The Necessity for Choice, New York, 1960, pp. 169–70.Google Scholar

18 Strausz-Hupé, Robert, Kintner, William R., and Possony, Stefan T., A Forward Strategy for America, New York, 1961, pp. 402–4.Google Scholar