Arms Control Challenges to Defense Planning

Abstract

Understandably, military planners and strategists are often overtaken by real-world events. Given the profound changes in the world in the past few years, the basis for planners' analysis has not changed: strategy and force structure designed to enhance deterrence at reasonable and acceptable costs. Planners require new and refined guidance to move into uncharted post-Cold War waters. Military planners should call upon resources provided by arms control initiatives. Arms control offers the opportunity to negotiate parity at the lowest practical levels and to develop strategies and force structures with a relatively high assurance of success against potential enemies. The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, Conventional Forces in Europe, and Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaties offer unique opportunities to apply arms control agreements to enhance defense planners' efforts. Future treaties should be shaped by defense needs as well as by arms control theories and broader foreign policy concerns.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Klaus Naumann , “Doctrines and Force Structures,” in The Guns Fall Silent: The End of the Cold War and the Future of Disarmament, ed. Ian M. Cuthbertson and Peter Volten (New York: Institute for East-West Security Studies, 1990), p. 53.

2. Paul H. Nitze , “Leapfrog into START II,” New York Times, 25 Oct. 1990.

3. David C. Jones , “Redefining Security, Expanding Arms Control,” Arms Control Today, 20(8):5 (Oct. 1990).

4. What has been defined as strategic or nonstrategic over the years has changed as technology itself has changed and developed. In this article, nonstrategic systems are those nuclear-capable weapons systems that are not included in the START process and that consist of delivery systems at sea, in the air, and on land.