ABSTRACT
Most analysts start with the premise that the anarchical nature of the international system is crucial: armed conflicts occur because no higher authority can prevent them. Arms control is made possible by the fact that the superpowers have common as well as conflicting interests even—or especially—in the military arena and that cooperation and conflict are so closely linked that one can hardly analyze one without paying attention to the other. There are two implications for arms control. First, crisis stability need not leave allies dangerously exposed to threats. Second, effective counterforce targeting is not necessary for deterrence. Arms controllers can argue for the virtues of mutual invulnerability without arguing against an effective military policy; the second arms control postulate is not invalidated by the state's need to protect its allies. The fundamental and secondary arms control postulates are compatible with the role of force and threats with the nuclear age.
