Review: Arms and Doctrine: International Arms Control
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207803300313 |
| Author | Robin Ranger |
| Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Published date | 01 September 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
630
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
options
did
the
German
leaders perceive
at
each
stage,
and
what
bar-
gains
did
they
achieve?
No single
theory
underlies the
analysis
or
emerges
from
it,
though
considerable
use
is
made of
Neustadt's
work
on
alliance
crises.
The
author
does
not venture
very
far
on
to
the more
speculative
ground
of
implications
for
nuclear
proliferation,
and
one
may
indeed
conclude
that
the
German
case
had
so
many
unique
features
as
to
pro-
vide
in
itself
few
pointers
to
the
likely
responses
of
governments
in
other
periods
as
well
as
other
strategic
situations.
One
may
also
question
whether
on
occasions,
despite
her
awareness
of
the
problem,
she
does
not
allow
'the
glaze
of
historical
inevitability'
to overlay
her
analysis.
But
these
are
minor
caveats
to
set
against
an
impressive research
achieve-
ment:
the
book
is
a
notable
addition
to
the
series
sponsored
by
the
Institute
of
War
and
Peace
Studies.
J.L.
Richardson/Australian
National
University
INTERNATIONAL
ARMS
CONTROL
Issues
and
Agreements
By
the
Stanford
Arms
Control Group;
edited
by
John
H.
Barton
and
Lawrence
D.
Weiler
Stanford,
Calif: Stanford
University
Press,
1976,
xii,
444PP,
$18.50
cloth,
$12.95
paper
Mainstream
American
arms
control
thinkers
and
practitioners
should
not
attempt
to
foist on
students
and
teachers,
in
the
guise
of
textbooks,
uneasy
mixtures
of
diplomatic
history,
unsupported
advocacy
of
their
beliefs,
and
the
defence
of
negotiations
in
which
they
participated.
This
the
Stanford
Arms
Control
Group
has
tried
to
do.
The
results
reinforce
the
importance
of
distinguishing
between
the
advocacy
of
very
particu-
lar
versions
of
arms
control
analysis
and
the
analysis
of
the
increas-
ingly
acrimonious
debate
between
such
advocates.
An
introductory
text
should
at
least
attempt
to do
the
latter,
whilst
making
it
clear
where
the
author's
preferences
lie:
the
Stanford
Group
does
the
former,
with-
out
acknowledging
that
its
view
is
a
very
biased
interpretation
of
what
arms
control
is
about,
albeit
a
widely
shared
bias.
Anyone
reading this
To continue reading
Request your trial