Cover: Is There a Case for Qualitative Constraints on Conventional Armaments?

Is There a Case for Qualitative Constraints on Conventional Armaments?

Published 1975

by James L. Foster

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback18 pages $20.00

It is increasingly evident that we are in a period of major change in conventional military capabilities. However, there has been surprisingly little analytic attention paid to the implications of those changes for defense budgets, for the conduct of conventional warfare and for arms control concerns. This paper is intended as an initial effort to draw together and critique the arguments that have been made regarding these issues. In doing so, it addresses three general questions in a manner intended to spur debate rather than to reach confirmed conclusions: (1) Are qualitative arms advances a critical issue? (2) Are constraints on those advances desirable from the U.S. perspective or do those advances favor U.S. interests? (3) What are the problems associated with alternative arms control approaches? 18 pp.

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper 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

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.