The case for naval arms control
- Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, DC (USA)
Resurfacing at the Malta summit, the issue of naval arms control has once again become prominent as START and other potential treaties near completion. The time has come when we should begin discussing naval forces, said Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, arguing that limiting only ground and air forces would not be equitable. The United States has opposed naval arms control - although some prominent U.S. officials, such as former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., have advocated some type of limitations. The official US position is that as a maritime power, the United States requires an unrestrained navy to fulfill its defense obligations. This issue of Arms Control Today presents here two views on this controversy. In the article, Richard Fieldhouse, senior research associate with the Nuclear Weapons Data Project, argues that there are indeed areas, such as controlling nuclear weapons on ships and confidence-building measures, that will enhance, not diminish, U.S. security. Following this, James R. Blaker, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, presents a counter argument.
- OSTI ID:
- 6714928
- Journal Information:
- Arms Control Today; (USA), Journal Name: Arms Control Today; (USA) Vol. 20:1; ISSN ACOTE; ISSN 0196-125X
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
A look behind the arms control agenda at the US-Russian and Sino-US summits
Prospects for naval arms control: A bad idea whose time has come. Final report