ABSTRACT
The differences between the pluralistic interpretation and the national leadership approach that really matter lie in the treatment of heterogeneous elements within the defense setting. A pluralistic interpretation can cite, for example, the Ministry of Defense, whose minister is a member of the Supreme Defense Council, as an organization that should be capable of pressuring the top leaders to pursue policies favorable to the military in general versus policies that would favor civilian interests. Both rational strategic actor and pluralistic approaches pay little attention to other features of the Soviet defense decision-making environment that are germane to an assessment of the impact of pluralistic pressures on Soviet strategic arms decisions. In arguing the case for effective pluralistic pressure in shaping Soviet strategic arms decisions, there is an understandable tendency to focus on interest groups that represent a relatively high level of interest aggregation—for example, the military services.
