House of Cards: Why Arms Control Must FailCornell University Press, 1992 - 242 pages "If peace breaks out, can arms control be far behind?" According to Colin S. Gray, this sardonic motto describes events of the 1990s just as well as it did those of the 1920s. Gray offers a provocative history of twentieth-century attempts at arms limitation, as he challenges the fundamental assumptions of arms control theory. Arms control has never worked, he concludes, because it never can. Existing approaches to arms control appeal to common sense, but they are logically unsound and inherently impractical, Gray argues, because they fail to take political realities into account. He outlines their inadequacies in what he calls the Arms Control Paradox: the more motivated nations are to fight one another, the less interested they will be in supporting significant arms limitations. Under these conditions, arms control agreements must be, to echo a phrase of George Will's, either impossible or unimportant. Documenting the naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s and the initiatives to limit strategic nuclear arms from 1969 to the present, Gray seeks to demonstrate that the fortunes of negotiated arms limitation have merely reflected the temperature of international relations, rather than influencing those relations. National security analysts, students and scholars of international relations, and others interested in arms control issues will want to read House of Cards and debate its conclusions. |
Contents
The Magic Kingdom of Arms Control | 1 |
Weapons and War | 25 |
How the Real World Makes Life Difficult for the Theorist 8888 | 70 |
Copyright | |
6 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
achieve agreements American argue argument armament arms control process arms control regimes arms limitation arms race balance believe Britain British cause century chapter claim competition compliance context course crisis critical debate defense Disarmament early effect Empire Europe evidence example experience fact fail forces Foreign formal future Germany ICBM idea important interest international security issues Italy Japan kind leading least less logic London matter means ment military missile naval Navy negotiated nuclear offensive officials operational paradox particular peace plans political positive possible potential practice predictability prevention problem question reasons record reduce relations Russian SALT Second sense serve significant Soviet Union stability START strategic Studies superpower technical theory threat tion treaty trol United University Press wars Washington weapons Western World York