ABSTRACT
The new developments in Sovietology reflected suggest that efforts to explain Soviet strategic arms decisions from a pluralistic decision-making standpoint should not simply be written off—as there would have been a strong temptation to do if such efforts had been made while Stalin was in charge. Allison's Cuban missile crisis study is the most visible example of a temptation to which one can easily succumb in applying pluralistic analyses to Soviet strategic arms decisions. Pluralistic elements could also contribute to a rational strategic decision by exerting influence through the information or advice they provide. The search for alternative explanations of foreign and defense policy decisions has not been without its element of irony, especially where strategic analysis in general and sovietology intersect. The capability of the totalitarian model to accommodate elements of heterogeneity and change that have been discerned in the Soviet political system, especially since Stalin's day, has been challenged on several fronts.
