Stable Deterrence and Its Limits

HERE WAS A HAPPY TIME, not too long ago, when the major dialogue on national arms policy was between the armers and the disarmers. -~The issue, at least in much of the public’s mind, was whether the nation ought to pursue a policy of negotiated comprehensive disarmament or one of national preparedness. There were those who believed that all arms races must eventuate in war, and those who believed that military superiority was the best guarantee of peace. But in recent years, this easy dichotomy has given way to a far more complicated picture. Both the armers and the disarmers have become increasingly sophisticated, and as a result have divided into a welter of sub-factions, each advocating a national security policy differing only slightly from that of its neighbor on the arms policy continuum. Though this fragmentation has led to a disconcerting muddying of the polemic waters, it must be viewed as a healthy and encouraging development. And even if one can hardly contend that the vast verbal and intellectual gap between the &dquo;tough&dquo; and the &dquo;soft&dquo; has been completely bridged, we are certainly moving in that direction. As a consequence, it is now more possible to engage in vigorous and meaningful discourse rather than to restrict ourselves to the vacuous and loaded exchanges of &dquo;sof t-on-communism&dquo; or &dquo;warmonger.&dquo;