| Summary/Abstract |
Despite the effort that went into strategizing and negotiating arms control during the Cold War, U.S. leaders remained divided over arms control’s intent and fundamental purpose. While there was general agreement that arms control should aim to avoid war, limit destructiveness, and decrease the costs of armaments, significant differences existed on the best specific policies to achieve these objectives.1 In approaching arms control negotiations, two schools of thought emerged by the late 1960s, when the Nixon administration came into office and began formulating its policies to guide the upcoming Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). One school that can be labeled the “assured destruction approach” believed negotiations with the Soviets should be used to limit dangerous first-strike weapons.2 Meanwhile, a second school that can be called the “competitive strategies approach” maintained that arms limitation talks could be used by the United States to gain strategic advantage over the Soviet Union.3 These competing approaches divided an already disputatious administration, and even amid the successes of détente and the SALT talks sowed doubt about the ultimate goals of improved relations with the Soviet Union and the de-escalation of the arms race. The following pages will describe the origins and nature of the Nixon administration’s philosophical split over arms control fundamentals, and the personal and political rivalries it engendered.
The Purposes of Ar
|