The Problem of Survival : Arms Policy in the 60's
| Author | Wesley W. Posvar |
| Date | 01 September 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296101400352 |
| Published date | 01 September 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
31
Administrative
Arrangements
and
Organization
With
the
growing
interdependence
of
the
western
states
economy,
pressures
will
continue
to
increase
for
integrated
management
and
development
of
re-
sources.
Better
coordination
of
resources
agencies
at
the
federal
level
may
be
expected,
while
integration
of
resources
functions
into
fewer
agencies
at
the
state
level
should
also
occur.
New
regional
authorities
are
unlikely,
but
the
improve-
ment
of
federal-state
and
interstate
relationships
through
compacts
and
other
administrative
arrangements
appears
certain.
A
number
of
developments
bear
watching
for
the
light
they
may
shed
on
emerging
administrative
arrangements.
A
new
type
of
partnership
between
the
federal
government
and
the
states
may
be
evolving
in
the
Upper
Colorado
River
Basin
where
the
Department
of
the
Interior
is
executing
an
embracive
water
development
program
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
states.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
whether
the
Lower
Colorado
River
Basin
states
will
be
able
to
reach
agree-
ments
for
the
distribution
of
power
to
be
released
by
Glen
Canyon
Dam
and
other
projects.
New
types
of
regional
cooperation
do
not
mean
that
state
and
parochial
outlooks
will
disappear,
nor
should
they
in
a
democratic
federal
system.
Legisla-
tive
bodies
will
still
continue
to
reflect
local
attitudes,
and
administrative
agencies
will
still
endeavor
to
curry
favor
with
clientele.
Political
scientists
need have
no
fear
that
the
future
will
find
them
without
worthy
subjects
for
study
in
this
field.
American
Foreign
Policy
in
the
60’s
THE
PROBLEM
OF
SURVIVAL :
ARMS
POLICY
IN
THE
60’S
WESLEY
W.
POSVAR
Air
Force
Academy
The
nature
of
arms
policy
in
the
nineteen-sixties
is
reflected
in
one
or
both
of
two
underlying
questions:
(1)
what
should
be
our
national
military
posture
in
order
to
counter
the
communist
threat?
and
(2)
what
should
be
our
policy
about
arms
control?
These
questions
are
quite
interdependent,
or
even
aspects
of
a
single
issue.
But
most
of
the
misunderstanding
and
some
of
the
fuzzy
conclusions
about
arms
policy
result
from
separating
the
two,
or
even
making
a
dichotomy
out
of
them.
There
is
an
erroneous
tendency
to
associate
the
first
with
a
&dquo;hard&dquo;
policy
line
and
the
second
with
a
line
of
&dquo;conciliation.&dquo;
Military
posture
and
arms
control
are
actually
related
in
terms
of
military
concepts.
Arms
control
is
one
way
of
alter-
ing
our
military
posture,
perhaps
altering
it
drastically.
Therefore,
everyone
who
has
a
viewpoint
or a
vested
interest
concerning
our
military
posture
automatically
takes
a
stand
toward
arms
control
which
would
tend
to
bring
about
the
result
he
wants.
The
disputants
over
our
military
posture
-
for
example
the
advocates
of
&dquo;finite&dquo;
or
&dquo;minimum&dquo;
deterrence
as
opposed
to
the
advocates
of
&dquo;counterforce&dquo;
strategy
-
would
approach
actual
disarmament
(which
is
only
one
aspect
of
arms
To continue reading
Request your trial