THE OBJECT of this inquiry has not been to settle the controversy about war and disarmament, only to illuminate it by regarding with an innocent eye the difficulties that confront all policies. If the arguments that have been presented do not point unambiguously towards some set of policies that are the right road ahead, if they do not remove doubt and anxiety about what should be done but induce them, where before they did not exist, I make no apology for this. The strong advocacy of policies, the marshalling of arguments so as to suggest them, involves a certain wilful blindness and abdication of critical judgment. In a subject so inherently uncertain as this, and so serious, there is a place for a kind of inquiry which is guided more by intellectual honesty than by the determination, at whatever cost to the latter, to discover 'solutions'.1
I hope therefore that this book will be regarded as an analysis of disarmament and arms control, intended to promote clear thinking about them and to assist other people in deciding what policies should be followed, rather than as an attempt to persuade people that certain policies are the correct ones. The foregoing chapters, however, have suggested that there are policies and strategies that might be adopted, and agreements that might be explored by negotiation, that are more likely to strengthen international security, or arrest its decline, than others. These conclusions, which are collected in this chapter, are tentative and less worthy of attention than the arguments from which they are drawn.
The world of sovereign states which are armed and divided is a dangerous one, in which there is no absolute security from war____________________