Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The arms control experience of the past 25 years has shown verification to be the key to the future success of formal arms control agreements, and has highlighted how crucial cooperation is to the verification effort. Unfortunately, fundamental disagreement persists within the United States over what we should expect from verification, and we seem to have lost sight of how far we have come with the Soviet Union. The first half of this article outlines the questions involved in the debate over verification, how much of it is enough, and what we should do about suspected cheating. This lays the groundwork for a detailed discussion of the precedents already established for cooperative verification. These include measures to foster resolution of treaty-related problems, increase the effectiveness of national technical means, provide for on-site inspection, and allow the use of “black box” sensors. These precedents represent considerable progress of which we should remind ourselves, especially at a time when they may be placed in jeopardy by our more recent lack of success in arms control.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency—ACDA (1982) Arms Control and Disarmament Agreements. Washington, DC: ACDA.

Cohen, S. A. (1980) “The evolution of Soviet views on SALT verification: implications for the future,” in W. C. Potter (ed.) Verification and SALT: The Challenge of Strategic Deception. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (1979) The SALT II Treaty (Executive Report No 96-14). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Crawford, F. R. et. al. [eds.] (1982) Compendium of Arms Control Verification Proposals, Second Edition. ORAE Report No 81. Ottawa: Department of National Defense, Canada.

Department of State (1979) Verification of SALT II Agreements. (Special Report No 56). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Dahl, R. A. (1985) “The control of nuclear weapons: democracy versus guardianship.” Public lecture, University of Vermont.

Duffy, G. (1986) “Administration redefines Soviet violations.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (February).

Earle, R. II and P. Staugaard (1982) “Another test avenue.” New York Times (18 December).

Grey, C. (1979) “Nuclear strategy: the case for a theory of victory.” Int. Security 4, 1.

10.

Grey, C. (1984) “Moscow is cheating.” Foreign Policy (Fall).

11.

Hardenbergh, C. [ed.] (1982-1986) The Arms Control Reporter. Brookline, MA: Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies.

12.

Kincade, W. H. (1980) “Verification and SALT II,” in G. H. Humphrey et al. (eds.) SALT II and American Security. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.

13.

Kincade, W. H. (1982) “Challenges to verification: old and new.” Presented at the Symposium on Verification at the Center for the Study of Arms Control and International Security, University of Lancaster.

14.

Miller, S. (1984.) “Politics over promise: domestic impediments to arms control.” Int. Security 8, 4.

15.

Mydral, A. (1979) The Game of Disarmament. New York: Patheon.

16.

Pieragostini, K. K. (1982) “RECOVERing verification.” Arms Control Today (December).

17.

Pieragostini, K. K. (1984) “The verification of arms control agreements,” in P. Joseph and M. Rosenblum (eds.) Search for Sanity: The Politics of Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament. Boston: South End.

18.

Potter, W. C. [ed.] (1985) Verification and Arms Control. Lexington, KY: Lexington.

19.

Rathjens, G. (1979) “The verification of arms control agreements,” in W. H. Kincade and J. D. Porro (eds.) Negotiating Security: An Arms Control Reader. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment.

20.

Scowcroft, B. et. al. (1983) Report of the President's Commission on Strategic Forces. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

21.

Van Atta, D. (1981) “Inside a US-Soviet Negotiation.” The Nation (December 19).