the end of the cold War will make a difference, but it is a difference that will develop slowly and that will not mean a complete change in the world order as some had hoped. They make a distinction between arms control and disarmament, with arms control seen as a means to achieving a larger goal, and disarmament seen as an end in itself:
As defined earlier, the arms control process is intended to serve as a means of enhancing a state's national security. Arms control is one of a number of approaches a nation has available for achieving this goal. arms control could even lead states to agree to increases in certain categories of armaments if such increases wold contribute to crisis stability and thereby reduce the chance of war. This concept of arms control should be distinguished from that of general and complete disarmament (Rattray 8).
In examining the Cold War era, Waller says that in terms of arms control, the era started "boldly and badly, but it finished well" (Waller 99). Many believe that the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its satellite Eastern bloc offers a rare opportunity for curtailing certain defense policies and expenditures on the basis of there no longer being an immediate need. Much of our defense policy over the past four decades has been geared to staving off an implied Soviet threat both from the Soviet Union itself and from the satellite nations of Eastern Europe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union into a series of smaller independent states has eliminated that threat and has in effect ended European Communism as an international threat. This has naturally created a sense of euphoria in the West, but it has also contributed to the development of a good deal of confusion and uncertainty. This confusion and uncertainty extends to the domestic scene in terms of the economic effects of military downsizing--closed factories, increased jobless roles, towns destroyed by the removal of military ...