Nuclear freeze: myths and realities
A nuclear freeze would create serious problems for US strategic and political interests, and would not achieve the professed goal of a lower probability of nuclear war. It could increase strategic instability and reinforce the morally questionable Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) approach of using civilian populations as hostages. Compliance would not be verifiable, and Soviet compliance would be doubtful. A review of the strategic and political implications and the basic assumptions of freeze advocates suggests that the movement has proved useful in forcing advocates of other positions to sharpen and refine their arguments. The challenge for freeze opponents is to make it clear to the public that the proposed freeze would benefit the Soviets and to offer viable alternatives for nuclear policy. 15 references.
- OSTI ID:
- 6791602
- Journal Information:
- Backgrounder; (United States), Vol. 251
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Nuclear weapons in the 1980s: MAD versus NUTS. Mutual hostage relationship of the superpowers
Freeze verification: time for a fresh approach