The Chinese genie : Peking's role in the nuclear test ban negotiations

Alice Langley Hsieh

ResearchPublished 1960

A study of the manner in which Communist China's atomic aspirations affected her military thinking and foreign policies on the question of disarmament and the nuclear test ban issue. Communist China indicated that she would be able to make atomic bombs in the "not too distant future." China was prepared to use the concern over her exclusion from the nuclear test ban negotiations to enhance her bargaining position with both the Soviet Union and the United States. Peking declared that without her participation and adherence a disarmament agreement could not have any binding force on Communist China, and the author suggests the very real possibility that China may not be willing to relinquish her atomic aspirations at any price.

Document Details

  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1960
  • Pages: 4
  • Document Number: RM-2595

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Hsieh, Alice Langley, The Chinese genie : Peking's role in the nuclear test ban negotiations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1960. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_memoranda/RM2595.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND research memorandum series. The research memorandum series, a product of RAND from 1948 to 1973, included working papers meant to report current results of RAND research to appropriate audiences.

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.