Nuke Proliferation Essay, Research Paper

USA:1 Russia:0

& # 8220 ; I can non but think. . . that the future growing of Russia. . . is non a small overrated. Without a civilizing of the hosts nominally widening the Russian domination over so many latitudes and longitudes, they will add small to her existent force, if they do non take away from it ; and in the event of their civilizing, and attendant addition, the overgrown imperium, as in so many predating cases, must fall into separate and independent provinces & # 8221 ;

Former President James Madison had adequate second sight, in 1821, to foretell the ruin of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. At that minute, the Soviet Union & # 8217 ; s 15 members became a commonwealth of separate states ; each filled with self-government to win with their newfound liberty. The dissolve of the Soviet Union efficaciously ended the cold war and gave the United States the triumph, but new jobs arose from both Russia and the non-Russian democracies. At the same clip the United States was thrust from a bipolar international system, into what seemed to be a unipolar one, the new Soviet Republics were thrust into a incubus of economic dislocation, rampant offense, and even civil war. As Kenneth Waltz says, & # 8220 ; In international political relations, overpowering power repels and leads other provinces to equilibrate against it. & # 8221 ; With this quotation mark and the hurt of the Soviet Republics in head, the new hegemony that the United States was sing would be short lived. A new crisis emerged from the Soviet Republics that threatened the security of the United States. Robert J. Art argues that one of the chief aims for the United States is to protect the fatherland from devastation, and the premier menace to this aim is the spread of atomic arms. Because of the hapless economic position of the Soviet Republics, they are unable to procure their ain atomic armory and reserves, which finally leads to atomic proliferation.

But does atomic proliferation truly present such a menace to the security of the United States? It is argued, that because of the harrowing world of atomic war, the United States and the Soviet Union have been notably more reticent than they might otherwise hold been, and hence crises that might hold escalated to unsafe degrees have been resolved safely at low degrees. Robert McNamara states that the & # 8220 ; sole aim & # 8221 ; of strategic atomic force & # 8220 ; is to discourage the other side & # 8217 ; s first usage of its strategic forces. & # 8221 ; Robert Jervis brings up the construct of Mutually Assured Destruction, and how it discourages the usage of atomic arms by demoing the inevitableness of entire devastation on both sides. So what would be the advantage of utilizing atomic arms?

Most of these statements have been made prior to the dissolve of the Soviet Union and were all formed under a bipolar international system. With the new Soviet Democracies, the United States must now cover with the menace of atomic arms in unstable states. Different menaces arise when unstable provinces attain atomic arms. First are the menaces that can be approached through a modern realist scrutiny. One province might misinterpret another province & # 8217 ; s attainment of atomic arms as an onslaught on their ain province & # 8217 ; s security and hence attain arms of equal or greater devastation. This would so convey about a security quandary, which is expected in the current lawless international system. Anarchy, as it is used here, does non merely intend a deficiency of overall authorities, but besides the presence of upset and pandemonium. The security quandary would put off an weaponries race and the more atomic arms there are, the greater the opportunity of an inadvertent or knowing usage. With the new Soviet Republics there would be new boundaries and more differences. & # 8220 ; Whether in the household, the community, or the universe at big, contact without occasional struggle is impossible. Among work forces as among provinces, lawlessness, or the absence of authorities, is associated with the happening of violence. & # 8221 ; Besides, with the diminished province of the economic system in the Soviet Republics, their internal military security is diminished to the point where their ability to react to a first work stoppage atomic onslaught is greatly threatened. Thus the Soviet Republics are forced to move with a hair-trigger system if a first work stoppage launch is detected. Next are the menaces that can be approached with a planetary society/complex mutuality solution. This type of position puts more accent on persons and other nonstate histrions. This is where there the United States is covering new land in atomic menaces. Most of the jobs of atomic proliferation root from the economic failure in the Soviet Republics. In their present economic state of affairs, some of the Soviet Republics are selling off the atomic arms and reserves, for much less than they & # 8217 ; re worth, and with small respect to whom. Another job originating from the economic hardship, is the inability to guard the bing atomic arms and reserves from larceny. It has been seen and documented by Germany that there were at least 350 instances of attempted atomic smuggling out of the fall ining Russian atomic workss. The possibility of atomic terrorist act has now become a world.

In order to get the better of these new menaces we must halt or retard atomic proliferation in the Soviet Republics. Some of the proposed solutions for making this are: supplying atomic backup to states ; supplying economic and military assistance in order to carry states non to travel atomic ; providing peaceable atomic power in order to do states dependent on American atomic fuel and hence topic to fuel cutoffs if they abandon non-proliferation ; making and supervising a world-wide anti-proliferation government ; and patroling recreant provinces. Subsequently in the paper I will associate more specific solutions to the job that it is set up to decide.

Chiefly, what I want to carry through, is to happen out what international dealingss theories motivate United States foreign policy with respect to atomic proliferation in the Soviet Republics. It is my belief that the United States & # 8217 ; foreign policy is chiefly influenced by the Global Society/Complex Interdependence theoretical account of international dealingss. Contrasting my original hypothesis, is my secondary hypothesis, which states that United States foreign policy is chiefly influenced by a Modern Realist theoretical account of international dealingss. By analyzing a choice figure of policies adopted by the United States, and associating them to one of the before mentioned theoretical accounts of international dealingss, I will research the cogency of my hypotheses. It appears that in order to acquire the best reply to the inquiry, neither hypothesis is sufficient. Both theoretical accounts of international dealingss significantly influence United States foreign policy. Although the grounds indicates that one theory & # 8217 ; s influence is seen more frequently, the other theory is given more importance ( funding ) by the United States.

I will foremost get down by explicating the two international relation theoretical accounts in some deepness. I will compare and contrast their cardinal points in order to give a clear differentiation between the two. I will so name the current menaces posed to the United States and correlate each one to a specific theoretical account of international dealingss. Next, the policies used to counter the menaces will be explained in length. This portion of the paper is important in what is to be done following ; finding which theoretical account was most influential in developing the policies. After the policies are explained utilizing their corresponding theoretical account, I will do my decisions about my hypotheses.

Two Models of International Relations

I am concentrating my treatment on merely two of the many theoretical accounts of international dealingss. After analyzing the chief subjects concerned with atomic proliferation in the Soviet Republics, I based my first and 2nd hypotheses on, what I felt were the two most applicable theoretical accounts: Modern Realism and Global Society/Complex Interdependence.

I will get down with the analysis of the Modern Realism theoretical account. To get down with, I have chosen one of the many aspects of pragmatism, that of modern pragmatism. In general, all realists believe in similar nucleus premises in international dealingss. Realists see the causes of war and the conditions of peace as cardinal jobs. Their position of the modern international construction is one of lawlessness. In structural lawlessness there is an absence of a cardinal authorization to settle differences, which gives rise to the security quandary. The security quandary occurs when, in a self-help system, one state & # 8217 ; s hunt for security frequently leaves its current and possible antagonists insecure. This state of affairs frequently provides inducements for weaponries races and other types of hostile interactions. Realists see geographically based groups as the cardinal histrions in the system. These groups are normally nation-states that are guided by national involvement. National involvement, under pragmatism, is defined in footings of security and power. For beginnings of theories, penetrations and grounds, realists look towards political relations, history, and, to a degree economic sciences.

The predating positions were shared by all types of realists, but what sets modern pragmatism apart from the remainder of the realists? Modern pragmatism tends to be a more deductive type of theoretical account. This deductive influence stems from the other major difference between classical and modern pragmatism. Modern realists accept and apply many economic tools and constructs to international dealingss.

The 2nd international dealingss theoretical account is the Global Society theoretical account. One of the most defining features is its widened position of the cardinal jobs in the international system. It carries a wide docket from societal, to economic, to environmental issues. The Global Society theoretical account recognizes that, in today & # 8217 ; s modern universe, there are new beginnings of motive, such as modernisation, the environment, and the economic system. This theoretical account besides stresses the importance of the actions of nonstate histrions, including persons. Within this theoretical account human demands and wants are seen as the cardinal motivation factors. The Global Society theoretical account emphasizes its ain ability to accommodate to the altering system around it.

For a basic comparing of the two theoretical accounts look at Table # 1. When comparing and contrasting the two theoretical accounts, one sees three countries where the two theoretical accounts strongly conflict. The first is in their construct of who the cardinal histrions are in the current international system. Modern realists merely acknowledge those histrions at the province degree while those utilizing the Global Society theoretical account recognize province histrions right down to the person. This shows that although nation-states continue to be of import international histrions, they possess a worsening ability to command their ain fates. The following difference can be seen in their motives. Global Society theoretical accounts recognize that international behaviour and results arise from a myriad of motivations, non simply security in the realist sense. Thus the Global Society theoretical accounts are more sensitive to the possibility that political relations of trade, currency, in-migration, wellness, and the environment may significantly differ from those typically associated with security issues. The last major difference is in the flexibleness of the theoretical accounts. Where modern pragmatism is stiff and unable to alter efficaciously, the planetary society is able to modify its policies in order to maintain up to the rapid gait of engineering.

Identifying the Menaces

What are the state of affairss caused by atomic proliferation that threaten the United States & # 8217 ; security? Under what theoretical account can they be identified? This subdivision will be divided into two parts, one dealing with the menaces that are recognized through the Modern Realism theoretical account, and the other covering with the menaces that are identified through the Global Society theoretical account. Although there are some cases in which the menace can be identified by both theoretical accounts, there will still be two separate analyses because of elusive differences in the two.

The major ground to be concerned with atomic proliferation in the new Soviet Republics is the opportunity, even if little, that a atomic incident could happen either deliberately or by accident. When this menace is examined with a Modern Realism theoretical account, the emerging jobs in a underdeveloped security quandary become evident. There are two chief grounds to be concerned about security quandary. First, they are powerful stimulations for provinces to get arms of mass devastation, and so they make forestalling proliferation harder. Second, they cause provinces to build up themselves beyond their security demands. A security quandary arises when a province, while build uping itself for strictly defensive grounds, accidentally makes its neighbours fell more insecure. The adjacent provinces in response increase their ain armories, believing they have redressed a serious instability in forces. The original province, seeing this activity by its neighbours, and believing that nil it did caused its neighbours to build up, infers that its neighbours must hold violative purposes ( or else they wouldn & # 8217 ; Ts have armed ) and accordingly increases its ain armory in response. This is called a spiral of common armament and leads to increasing degrees of intuition about each other & # 8217 ; s purposes. The security quandary has peculiar deductions for the non-Russian democracies. Given their size relation to Russia, and their attendant deficiency of assurance in their ability to support themselves with conventional arms, security quandary are more likely to do them desire to get atomic and other arms of mass devastation. This scenario has a effect that I have already referred to earlier in the paper: that there would be a greater independent hazard of atomic war, whether by knowing agencies or non.

In add-on, modern realists see the economic hurt of the new Soviet Republics as country with a possible menace. The realists view this job is restricted to the province degree merely. At this degree, the Soviet Republics are selling off their atomic arms and reserves, with small or no discretion as to which province is the buyer, for much needed province income. This is atomic proliferation at its most basic degree. In the self-help, lawlessness system, nation-states are motivated by national involvement, power, and security. In a realist system, the province will work towards carry throughing these motives at all cost.

Another menace that consequences from the economic disparity is what is called the hair-trigger consequence. Russia & # 8217 ; s terrible budget crunch has so strained its atomic forces that Russian military leaders fear they would non be able to react to a US foremost work stoppage. Due to miss of financess, all but two of its ballistic missile pigboats are in dock and most of its other nomadic ballistic missiles have been garrisoned. Therefore most of Russia & # 8217 ; s armory is stationary and could be destroyed, if non launched before the impact of incoming missiles. As a consequence, Rus

sian military contrivers are more likely to trust on a policy of “launch on warning.” That is, establishing their most vulnerable missiles before the first enemy missile has landed. This provides small clip for determination devising ( 15 to 30 proceedingss ) . To intensify the menace, the deteriorating status of Russia’s early warning radio detection and ranging and satellites increases the possibility of false signals. In January 1995, the launch of a Norse atmospheric research projectile brought the danger of Russia’s launch-on-warning policy into crisp focal point. Despite anterior presentment of the launch, Russia mistook the research projectile for a sea-launched ballistic missile. Before acknowledging the mistake, President Yeltsin and his commanding officers had begun triping the launch codifications of Russia’s atomic missiles.

Now we will analyze the menaces that can be identified through the Global Society theoretical account. First and foremost are the menaces that result from the diminished economic systems of the Soviet Republics. Because of the economic strain on them, most of the Soviet Republics have a deficiency of support for the intent of procuring their atomic arms and reserves. Many underpaid Russian soldiers have resorted to the belowground pawning of atomic stuffs for money. This job is of import at the single degree because there is relevancy in who the supplies are leaked to, most likely & # 8220 ; brainsick solons and ruthless terrorists. & # 8221 ; Many people believed in the yesteryear that atomic terrorist act was nil to be worried about. Robert J. Art writes & # 8220 ; ? to do an effectual atomic menace, terrorists must uncover their individualities ; and when they do, they can be targeted and hence deterred. & # 8221 ; I see this statement as a small excessively optimistic. In March 1995, US Customs agents in Miami launched a biennial clandestine probe making into high-ranking official circles in Russia, Bulgaria and Lithuania. It would go the first believable instance of a scenario to smuggle tactical atomic arms into the United States. The Untied States was able to set an terminal to this terrorist action before any atomic menace could happen, but are we willing to trust upon a 100 % success rate on all atomic terrorist menaces?

Proposed Solutions

I will turn to each of the menaces listed in the old subdivision separately along with the related international related theoretical account & # 8217 ; s proposed solution ( s ) . Each solution itself will be correlated to either the Modern Realism theoretical account or the Global Security theoretical account. I will explicate what characteristics of the proposed solution relate it to the peculiar international dealingss theory.

First, I will analyze the modern realist proposals for get the better ofing the menaces ensuing from the security quandary. The first mentioned menace was that of an weaponries race among the Soviet Republics. One of the proposed solutions to this menace would be for the United States to include the Soviet Republics under their & # 8220 ; umbrella & # 8221 ; of atomic protection. It is thought that if the United States were to endorse these democracies, that the demand for their ain atomic armory would be disused. This solution is proposed on the province degree, to extinguish the demand of atomic arms for national security. Therefore, if we were to vouch the security of the single democracy and give power to the province through atomic backup, we would hold successfully eliminated the cardinal modern realist motives to acquire involved in a security quandary, and accordingly an weaponries race.

A 2nd menace ensuing from the security quandary is it causes provinces to build up themselves beyond security demands. One manner in which action has been taken to cut down the figure of atomic arms has been through the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties ( START ) . With the sign language of the first START ( Strategic Arms Reduction ) pact in 1991, the United States and Russia committed to doing major cuts in their atomic forces. The START understandings set bounds on the figure of payloads that each state can deploy on strategic ( intercontinental ) atomic arms. These understandings besides require the devastation of a big figure of long-range bringing systems such as missiles, pigboats, and bombers. Under START I, the United States is cut downing its deployed strategic atomic armory from the 1990 degree of approximately 13,000 payloads to about 8,500. Russia will cut down its deployed strategic payloads from approximately 11,000 to about 6,500. In January 1993, the United States and Russia signed the START II pact, in which they agreed to cut their deployed strategic forces to 3,500 payloads each. This pact besides bans the deployment of land-based missiles with more than one payload. Although the START pacts are presently merely with Russia, the fact that Russia is diminishing its atomic armory should give some added security to the non-Russian Republics. This would extinguish their loss of security through the security quandary. Again, the cardinal issues of security and power, the motives in modern pragmatism, are the chief mark of the START pacts. In order to wholly free the Soviet Republics of this facet of the security quandary, the START pacts must be extended to the non-Russian Republics. Unfortunately for the United States, it missed a valuable chance to widen the START pacts. In 1992 Secretary of State Baker toured the Soviet Republics. He told the leading of each democracy that Washington would non acknowledge them unless they adhered to all pacts refering atomic and conventional arms that the former Soviet Union had signed. Unfortunately, the disposal bowed to unfavorable judgment from Democrats that Bush and Baker were non acknowledging the post-Soviet democracies fast plenty. The disposal so acted hurriedly and developed a policy that was non strategically sound. The United States now had diplomatic dealingss with each of the 15 Soviet Republics, even though merely Russia had signed and ratified the assorted weaponries control pacts. In order to implement the START pacts, United States would so hold to get down actively patroling the Soviet Republics. Patroling would necessitate some type of military presence in the Soviet Republics. But this overreaching by the United States might be perceived by the Soviet Republics to harbour hostile purposes, hence giving a security quandary and a spiral of belligerencies.

In order to get the better of the menaces brought approximately by the hapless economic province in respects to the merchandising of atomic arms and reserves from province to province the United States must actively implement the atomic Nonproliferation Treaty ( NPT ) . This pact was established in 1968 and was recognized by many states including the Soviet Union. The NPT barred acquisition of atomic arms by nonnuclear provinces and forbade atomic provinces to export their capablenesss to other states. This policy deals straight with the provinces, where it groups states as a whole in order to allow them security. It besides focuses on one of the cardinal jobs recognized by modern realists, the conditions of peace. Again, the United States lost its window of chance to hold the non-Russian provinces ratify the NPT in the same debacle as the START pacts. So until the United States can acquire the NPT ratified by the non-Russian Republics, the menace will stay.

In another country of economic diminution in the Soviet Republics, there emerges the hair-trigger menace. There are two possible solutions in covering with this menace. One is to cover with the economic causes, and the other is to cover with the military causes. Since the economic causes are traveling to be explored in deepness on the following menace, I will take to discourse the pending military jobs that conveying about the hair-trigger state of affairs. In order to take the hair-trigger menace a procedure needs to be instituted called de-alerting. De-alerting would travel to widen the clip needed to fix atomic arms for launch by hours, yearss, or hebdomads. Doing so could forestall little struggles or misinterpretations from falling quarry to the atomic hair trigger and break outing into atomic war. De-alerting would supply clip for ice chest caputs to predominate. It would work to better US-Russian dealingss by cut downing tensenesss ; advancing stableness ; heightening safety, precautions, and security ; back uping traditional weaponries control ; and salvaging money. One method of de-alerting is given by Bruce Blair. Blair & # 8217 ; s proposal has emerged from comprehensive negotiations with Russian specializers and uses an just and symmetrical attack to: drastically keep the most deadly counterforce arms, increase transparency- leting for easy confirmation, dramatically cut the figure of strategic payloads configured for launch on warning, and make a de-alerted armory that would be slow to change by reversal. This solution approaches the menace from a modern realist place. It performs on the province degree, and is centrally motivated by national involvements, security, and power.

Finally, there is the menace of atomic terrorist act brought approximately by the hapless economic province. This appears to be the lone menace with a solution based on the Global Society theoretical account. The plans enacted to work out this menace are directed toward pecuniary and economic assistance. These & # 8220 ; Nunn-Lugar & # 8221 ; plans ( named for Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, who initiated them in 1992 ) provide the former Soviet states with fiscal and proficient aid. These plans, frequently called concerted menace decrease [ CTR ] plans, are established to ease the riddance, and the safe and unafraid transit and storage, of atomic, chemical and other arms and their bringing vehicles ; to ease the safe and unafraid storage of fissionable stuffs derived from the riddance of atomic arms ; to forestall the proliferation of arms, arms constituents and arms related engineering and expertness ; and to spread out military to military and defence contacts. There are legion ways in which the Nunn-Lugar plans follows the Global Society theoretical account. First it was formed in order to restrict the actions of certain terrorists, which are on the sub-state, single, degree of analysis. Second, it takes into history a wide docket of societal, economic, and environmental issues, which are cardinal jobs in the Global Society theoretical account.

Decision

My aim in the paper is to happen out which international dealingss theories motivated United States foreign policy with respect to atomic proliferation in the Soviet Republics. It was my belief that the United States & # 8217 ; foreign policy is chiefly influenced by the Global Society/Complex Interdependence theoretical account of international dealingss. Contrasting my original hypothesis, was my secondary hypothesis, which states that United States foreign policy is chiefly influenced by a Modern Realist theoretical account of international dealingss. It appears that in order to acquire the best reply to the inquiry, neither hypothesis is sufficient. Both theoretical accounts of international dealingss significantly influence United States foreign policy. Even though the realist statement was used in more policies, it was the Global Society statement that was implemented with the most assurance. Ultimately, which policy is to be used seems to be decided on a instance to instance footing, determined by the particular job at manus.

Bibliography

Madison to Richard Rush, November 20, 1821, in James Madison, Letters and Other Hagiographas of James Madison ( Philadelphia, 1867 ) : Three, 235-236.

Kenneth N. Waltz, & # 8220 ; America as a Model for the World? A Foreign Policy Perspective, & # 8221 ; PS, December 1991, p. 669.

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; International Security, vol. 15, No. 4 ( Spring 1991 ) , p. 71.

John Lewis Gaddis, The Long Peace ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1987 ) , p. 229-332.

Robert McNamara, & # 8220 ; The Military Role of Nuclear Weapons, & # 8221 ; Foreign Affairs, Vol. 62, No. 4 ( Fall 1983 ) , p. 68.

Robert Jervis, & # 8220 ; The Political Effects of Nuclear Weapons, & # 8221 ; International Security, Vol. 13, No. 2 ( Fall 1988 ) .

Kenneth Waltz, & # 8220 ; Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power, & # 8221 ; Theory of International Politics, ( Newberry Award Records, 1979 ) p. 77.

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; p. 87.

Kenneth Waltz, & # 8220 ; Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power, & # 8221 ; p. 67

Walter LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1996, 8th edition, ( McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. , 1997 ) .

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; p. 91.

Ole R. Holsti, & # 8220 ; Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy, & # 8221 ; Diplomatic History, 13,1 ( Winter 1989 ) , p. 16-17

See Ole R. Holsti, & # 8220 ; Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy. & # 8221 ;

See Ole R. Holsti, & # 8220 ; Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy. & # 8221 ;

Ole R. Holsti, & # 8220 ; Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy, & # 8221 ; p. 21.

See Ole R. Holsti, & # 8220 ; Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy. & # 8221 ;

Ted Hopf, & # 8220 ; Pull offing Soviet Disintegration, A Demand for Behavioral Rights, & # 8221 ; International Security, Vol. 17, No. 1, ( Summer 1992 ) .

Robert Jervis, & # 8220 ; Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma, & # 8221 ; World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 2, ( January 1978 )

See Ted Hopf, & # 8220 ; Pull offing Soviet Disintegration, A Demand for Behavioral Rights. & # 8221 ;

Controling Nuclear Weapons in Russia, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/trigger.html 11/21/99

& # 8220 ; A De-alerting Primer, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/primer.html 11/21/99.

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; p. 87.

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; p. 88

& # 8220 ; Frontline: Russian Roulette: Miami- a Nuclear Smuggling Scenario, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/scenario/ 11/21/99

Robert J. Art, & # 8220 ; A Defensible Defense America & # 8217 ; s Grand Strategy After the Cold War, & # 8221 ; p. 91.

& # 8220 ; The Start Process, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/start.html 11/22/99.

& # 8220 ; The Start Process, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/start.html 11/22/99.

See Ted Hopf, & # 8220 ; Pull offing Soviet Disintegration, A Demand for Behavioral Rights. & # 8221 ;

See Ted Hopf, & # 8220 ; Pull offing Soviet Disintegration, A Demand for Behavioral Rights. & # 8221 ;

Walter LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1996, 8th edition, p. 363.

& # 8220 ; A De-Alerting Primer, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/primer.html 11/23/99

Bruce Blair, & # 8220 ; De-alerting Strategic Nuclear Forces, & # 8221 ; Deep Cuts, June 25, 1997 bill of exchange.

& # 8220 ; Controling Nuclear Weapons and Materials in Russia: The Nunn-Lugar Programs, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ucsusa.org/arms/nunn.lugar.html 11/23/99.

& # 8220 ; Nunn-Lugar & # 8217 ; s Unfinished Agenda, & # 8221 ; hypertext transfer protocol: //www.armscontrol.org/ACT/oct97/nunnoct.htm 11/23/99

32b