ABSTRACT
Agreements building upon the common interest, the argument ran, could emerge in one of two ways. One possibility was to rely on an understanding evolving naturally out of the logic of diplomacy at those moments of crisis when continued antagonism could lead to immediate disaster. However, it was risky to depend on wise statecraft in circumstances of high tension and danger; the necessary understanding might arrive too late and be too ambiguous and too tenuous. The other possibility was to negotiate agreements prior to a crisis at a time of normal international relations. The hope was that the balance of terror, though uncomfortable, would remain stable if properly managed. The need for active negotiations depends on the extent to which the independent development of military forces displays an inherent bias towards instability. Talk about an ‘arms race’ assumes that one exists, and so generates demands for positive action to correct the bias and reverse the ‘mad momentum’.
