Innovation And The Arms Race: How The United States And The Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies
"Technology fuels the arms race" is one of the unexamined maxims of foreign affairs. This interesting book is an effort at remedy. Drawing on a major case study of tactical nuclear weapons, it seeks to understand the pressures for innovation that derive both from within and outside the two superpowers. It concludes that in the United States "the impetus for innovation in weapons technology comes from the bottom," while in the Soviet Union, given secrecy and rigidity, it is more likely to come from the top; thus, the U.S. introduces, the Soviet Union reproduces, in quantity. The resulting policy prescription-U.S. technological restraint traded for Soviet quantitative limits-is not new, but the analysis makes it more interesting.
Related
The Clinton administration supports crippling economic sanctions that punish the Iraqi people but seems ready to live with the demise of international inspections to monitor Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Washington has it exactly backward. It should offer Baghdad a blunt trade: lightened sanctions in return for renewed, intrusive arms inspections. The sweeping sanctions regime does nothing to advance U.S. interests, undermine Saddam, or contain Iraq. Leaving Saddam's arsenal unwatched is folly. Better to have arms inspections without sanctions than sanctions without arms inspections.
The specter of weapons of mass destruction being used against America looms larger today than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. The World Trade Center bombing scarcely hints at the enormity of the danger. America is prepared only for conventional terrorism, not a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons catastrophe. With the right approach and organization, however, the United States can be ready. Herewith a plan to reorganize the U.S. government to ensure that it can handle the threats of the next century.
After the Cold War, the demands on American leadership are no less stern than they were in Dean Acheson's day. Present again at the creation, U.S. diplomacy must pass a series of tests -- of vision, pragmatism, spine, and principle -- to build a foundation for a new world. This will mean encouraging democracy, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, working to shore up the international financial system, engaging Beijing, and standing up to Baghdad and Belgrade. But America needs resources to lead, and Congress has foreign policy living hand-to-mouth. America cannot afford to abdicate its world role.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.