| Titre | SALT, ou le triomphe de l'« arms control » | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Pierre Hassner | |
 |
Revue | Revue Française de Science Politique |
| Numéro | 23e année, n°4, 1973 | |
| Rubrique / Thématique | L'équilibre international à l'heure des SALT |
|
| Page | 779-789 | |
| Résumé |
SALT, or the triumph of arms control, by Pierre Hassner
Does the Moscow agreement on strategic arms limitation mark the beginning of a process of disarmament, or, at least, of arms reduction ? Is it rather a sham, or a decoy, protecting a continuing arms race? Or is its value mostly political, in as much as, by formalizing the nuclear balance into a contractual relationship, it thereby transforms its meaning? All three interpretations have an element of truth, but the third one more than the two others. Strategically, the meaning of SALT I lies in the recognition of nuclear parity by the two Superpowers, in the victory of the theory of deterrence by mutual assured destruction, and in the institutionalization of a certain cooperation, which is seen as necessary order to prevent a destabilizing arms race. Neither of these results is total or irreversible. But their meaning must be seen in the light of the series of political, economic and technological agreements concluded at the same time as the strategic one, in spite of the crisis over Vietnam. In order to maintain what has been achieved as a result of a marriage between arms control and realpolitik the global Soviet-American agreement will have to go still further, which will probably cause important changes in the structure of both societies as well as of the international system.
[Revue française de science politique XXIII (4), août 1973, pp. 779-789.] Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Résumé anglais |
SALT, or the triumph of arms control, by Pierre Hassner
Does the Moscow agreement on strategic arms limitation mark the beginning of a process of disarmament, or, at least, of arms reduction ? Is it rather a sham, or a decoy, protecting a continuing arms race? Or is its value mostly political, in as much as, by formalizing the nuclear balance into a contractual relationship, it thereby transforms its meaning? All three interpretations have an element of truth, but the third one more than the two others. Strategically, the meaning of SALT I lies in the recognition of nuclear parity by the two Superpowers, in the victory of the theory of deterrence by mutual assured destruction, and in the institutionalization of a certain cooperation, which is seen as necessary order to prevent a destabilizing arms race. Neither of these results is total or irreversible. But their meaning must be seen in the light of the series of political, economic and technological agreements concluded at the same time as the strategic one, in spite of the crisis over Vietnam. In order to maintain what has been achieved as a result of a marriage between arms control and realpolitik the global Soviet-American agreement will have to go still further, which will probably cause important changes in the structure of both societies as well as of the international system.
[Revue française de science politique XXIII (4), août 1973, pp. 779-789.] Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rfsp_0035-2950_1973_num_23_4_393493 |
