ABSTRACT
Much of the public debate on arms control takes as its starting-point the need to reduce the international level of armaments. At issue is how this is to be achieved. The debate can easily turn into a contest between the grand gestures of the unilateralists, who hope to send the arms race into reverse by a dramatic renunciation of a particular capability, and the caution of the multilateralists, who put their faith in painstaking diplomatic effort. Binding agreements are preferable to protestations of good will, simply because they are likely to be much more durable. However, as this paper has sought to demonstrate, it is as well to acknowledge the complications that are introduced into the practice of multilateral or bilateral arms control as a result of the need to negotiate agreements, instead of relying on tacit understandings or reciprocated arrangements. Negotiations create their own hopes and expectations.
