Lin@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/23/86)
I'm currently exploring the following question, and I would like comments on it. This query also appears on ARMS-D, which I moderate. Please forward responses to me directly, since I am not on POLI-SCI. Also tell me if I cannot forward your responses to ARMS-D. What are the circumstances under which it is possible to regulate military technology by negotiated agreement (as in an arms control treaty)? Some people say that the evolution of technology will eventually vitiate any arms control agreement; others say that arms control can be a useful tool for restraining or limiting technology or making it more predictable. Note too that there are at least 3 types of arms control. The performance characteristics of weapons can be limited; their deployments can be limited; their use can be limited. The ABM Treaty is an example of this discussion. Some argue that the evolution of BMD technology since 1972 has rendered the Treaty obsolete. In other words, the Treaty no longer has the justification that it once had, nor does it apply to new technologies upon which regulations have not been agreed. Others argue that the Treaty is not obsolete, and has meaningful utility in a world of lasers and particle beams. In other words, the Treaty still has justification, and prevents worst-case planning on the other side by making the strategic environment more predictable. New technologies should be incorporated into the Treaty regime as they come on line. What are the technological characteristics of the ABM Treaty regime that make either point of view valid? -------