The Sino-Soviet nuclear dialogue, 1963.

Expert InsightsPublished 1964

A close analysis of Chinese and Soviet statements about military matters affecting the West. Their positions diverge on the following: war and peace, proliferation of nuclear weapons, and Soviet military assistance to China. The Chinese, though aware of nuclear destructiveness and sensitive to their own military weakness, are less cautious about war than the Soviets. The Chinese want nuclear weapons; the Soviets prefer other socialist states to rely on Soviet might. China has decided to go it alone rather than pay the price of Soviet military assistance. Looking to the future, it is difficult to envisage even a partial restoration of military cooperation. 40 pp.

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1964
  • Pages: 42
  • Document Number: P-2852

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

The Sino-Soviet nuclear dialogue, 1963. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1964. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P2852.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.