We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
Of the several public dialogues currently being carried on in the United States, the controversy over military strength and disarmament may be both the most important and the most confusing. Its importance is obvious; it is an interesting commentary on the vital nature of armament-disarmament policy that the literature in the field is burgeoning almost as fast as the literature about the Civil War on its 100th anniversary. But, if the importance is obvious, the confusion is becoming equally so.
1 American Friends Service Committee, Speak Truth to Power, Philadelphia, 1955, p. 68.Google Scholar
2 Kahn, Herman, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, N.J., 1960, pp. 559–60.Google Scholar
3 Newman, James R., “Two Discussions of Thermonuclear War,” Scientific American, CCIV (March 1961), pp. 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Warren Weaver, Testimony recorded in Senate of the United States, Control and Reduction of Armaments, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Par. 12, January 16–17, 1957, p. 1145.Google Scholar
5 Congress of the United States, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, Summary-Analysis of Hearings, June 22–26, 1959 (Washington, D.C., G.P.O., August 1959), p. 5.Google Scholar
6 Pauling, Linus, No More Warl, New York, 1958, p. 141.Google Scholar
7 Lapp, Ralph E., “Nuclear War,” in Fowler, John M., ed., Fallout, New York, 1960, p. 172.Google Scholar
8 New YorK Times, March 20, 1960, p. 51.
9 Cannell, Rogers, “The Active Role of Passive Defense,” SRI Journal, III (Fourth Quarter, 1959), p. 182.Google Scholar
10 Fowler, John M., “National Survival,” in Fallout, op.cit., p. 185.Google Scholar
11 Chet Holifield, “Civil Defense,” in ibid., p. 130.
12 Quoted in New York Times, May 26, 1961, p. 12.
13 Cousins, Norman, “The Fallacy of the Deterrent,” Saturday Review, April 16, 1960, p. 28.Google Scholar
14 The unilateral taking of small steps toward disarmament in hope of Soviet reciprocation, as is suggested by Charles Osgood and others, is quite different, although it too is sometimes called “unilateral disarmament.”
15 Kahn, Herman, Testimony recorded in Congress of the United States, Biological and Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, June 22–26, 1959, p. 910.Google Scholar
16 Fromm, Erich, “The Case for Unilateral Disarmament,” in Daedalus, Special Issue on Arms Control, Fall 1960, pp. 1018–19.Google Scholar
17 Kissinger, Henry, The Necessity for Choice, New York, 1960, pp. 169–70.Google Scholar
18 Strausz-Hupé, Robert, Kintner, William R., and Possony, Stefan T., A Forward Strategy for America, New York, 1961, pp. 402–4.Google Scholar
