ABSTRACT
The role of arms sales in supporting US security has to be highly contingent, because interests outside Europe are diverse, conditional, and inconsistent, yet proponents and critics of sales tend to trap themselves in categorical assertions about the arms trade as a phenomenon in itself. Aggregate statistics about worldwide arms transfers are meaningless, as is the concept of a "general" arms race as opposed to specific disagreements between states about what their relative capabilities should be. Absolute standards, even in regard to specific cases—about the amount or cost of arms—do not themselves indicate how transfers will affect regional security. The direct defense functions of arms transfers almost always take a back seat to diplomatic and political dimensions of strategy. Resupply of Israel in October 1973 reduced US military power, denuding the European Command of much of its armor. Strategic rationales for trimming arms trade are harder to develop for supplier strategic interests than for customers' economic development interests.
