Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T20:48:33.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Must Strategy and Conscience Be Disjoined?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Arthur Lee Burns
Arthur Lee Burns
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access

Extract

A Critique of “Theories of Rational Decision” and an exposé of “Hazards and Pitfalls of Strategic Thinking” comprise the first two and more significant Parts of Strategy and Conscience. A third Part pleads for understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union, and for “ideological disarmament”; it presents vanother mode of thinking in which conscience is central.”

Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 1965 , pp. 687 - 702
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1965

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 “Systemic and Strategic Conflict: What Happens When People Do Not Think—and When They Do,” Virginia Quarterly Review, XL (Summer 1964), 342.Google Scholar

2 New Yorker, October 10, 1964, p. 102.

3 Kaplan, Morton A., System and Process in International Politics (New York 1957), 191–244.Google Scholar

4 Rapoport, “Systemic and Strategic Conflict,” 361–65.

5 Ann Arbor, Mich., 1960.