Review: Arms and Doctrine: Canadian Military Independence in the Age of the Superpowers
| Author | A.M.J. Hyatt |
| Published date | 01 September 1978 |
| Date | 01 September 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002070207803300315 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
ARMS
AND
DOCTRINE
633
nuclear
fission
power with
a
non-fission
energy source
as
soon
as
possible.
In
the meantime,
spent
fuel
would
'not
be
reprocessed anywhere
for
plutonium
recovery,
except
possibly
at
a
few
international
centres
under
international
control.'
The
authors
believe
that
a
long-term
future
without
fission
may
be
possible. Given
the
frightful
dangers
of
a
world
with
many
nuclear-
weapon
states
this
is
a
comforting
conclusion.
Frank
Barnaby/sIPRI
CANADIAN
MILITARY
INDEPENDENCE IN
THE
AGE
OF
THE
SUPERPOWERS
Brian
Cuthbertson
Toronto:
Fitzhenry
&
Whiteside,
1977,
xiv,
282pp,
$15.95
Brian Cuthbertson
argues
for
an
independent
defence policy
for
Canada
to
rectify
what
he
calls
the
'continental
imbalance,' the enormous
dis-
parity
in
military
power between
Canada
and
the
United
States.
His
book will
not
satisfy
anti-Americans,
total
disarmers,
or
advocates
of
close
co-operation
with
the
United
States.
Others
may
quarrel
with
all
or
parts
of
his
thesis,
but
will
find
it
stimulating and
provocative.
Cuthbertson
disagrees
with
the
notion
that
'a close
defence
relation-
ship
between
Canada
and
the
United
States
is
a
permanent
feature
of
continental
relations
and
that
Canada
has
had,
and
will
continue
to
have,
very
few
options.'
However,
he
does
not
advocate dissociation
from
the
United
States
or
an isolationist
attitude
towards
Europe.
From
time
to
time
his
historical
judgments
can
be
questioned:
to argue
that
'in the
years
immediately
before
the
Second
World
War,
Canada
could have
easily
maintained
the
necessary forces
to
defend
the
homeland
from
overseas
attack'
is
at
least
debatable.
Nevertheless,
his
main argument
is
convincing.
Many
of
the
most
important
defence
decisions
in
Canadian
history,
according to the
author,
have been
made for
political
reasons.
'Canadian
governments
have
a
habit
of
accepting commitments
which
declaratory
policy
and
logic suggest
are
more
than
unlikely.'
With this
there
surely
can
be
little quarrel.
But
political
reasons
frequently
have
an
economic
underpinning
which
could
sometimes be
more
explicitly
analysed.
For example,
Cuthbertson
advocates
'the
creation of
a
sub-
To continue reading
Request your trial