This study of the naval-training system grew out of our larger project on the development of China's strategic weapons. After completing work on the history of Beijing's nuclear weapons program, we began research on Project 09, China's development program for nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. This research brought to light important new materials on the overall growth of China's navy and led to interviews with Chinese naval specialists. The new data suggested important insights into questions related to military professionalism and the long-range strategy for Chinese military power. This review of the history of Chinese naval training thus illuminates larger issues of Chinese defense planning and security goals. It also provides a baseline for assessing the missions of the navy and its readiness for carrying out those missions.

Soviet theoreticians reject the concept of a national strategy or a grand strategy above military strategy, reasoning that the national strategy or grand strategy of the United States and other Western countries is simply their anti-Soviet stance. They further maintain that military strategy includes political, economic, scientific and technological, and moral factors. Realization of national military objectives (that is, national power) requires unification of these factors. Thus it is not necessary to have a national strategy or grand strategy beyond military strategy.

The Soviets hold that military doctrine and military policy, rather than national strategy or grand strategy, are above military strategy. In fact, the Western notion of national strategy or grand strategy and the Soviet concept of military doctrine or military policy are similar in content. The distinction derives from the fact that the Soviet Union is a Communist country, where the Party leads everything. The Party's policy is the government's policy, and the decisions and resolutions passed at a Party congress are guiding principles not only for the government, but for all spheres of daily life.

The Korean Peninsula is one of the areas of acute political instability and conflict in the Asian-Pacific region. This is partly but not exclusively because of the unsettled problems between the two parts of Korea. The international environment could be more conducive to an inter-Korean dialogue, to national reconciliation, and to reunification. Without interfering in the internal affairs of the Korean nation, the United States and the Soviet Union, and other major powers of the region, could create more-favorable conditions settling the Korean problem, understanding always that the principal aspects of the problem are internal and must be solved by the two Korean states themselves.

It is the American view that Japan has been totally dependent on the United States for its national security, and that this favorable condition has enabled the Japanese to dedicate themselves fully to economic development with no significant military burden. The competitive edge of many U.S. industries, including those of steel, shipbuilding, electrical appliances, motorcycles, office equipment, automobiles, and computers, has eroded considerably since the 1960s, and Japan has taken all the blame for the downfall. The U.S. semiconductor industry is on the verge of falling behind because of aggressive Japanese sales policies.  Moreover, Japan has for years protected its domestic industries so the U.S. industries have struggled in vain to penetrate the Japanese market.  Some U.S. critics argue that the disputes over a huge trade imbalance between the two countries can best be explained by these unfair Japanese advantages. The invisibility of the role of Japanese contribution toward western security has also intensified irritation in the U.S. Congress. The recent controversy over the FS-X (fighter supporter) project of the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) evolved out of these circumstances. The details of and epilogue to this controversy are discussed in this paper.

The neutron bomb is a controversial weapon. Indeed, the public disclosure by the United States of its development in 1977 has provoked sharp and widespread debate that is likely to continue in the future. Although the United States has manufactured and stockpiled neutron bombs, in order to mollify public opposition in Europe it announced in 1981 that these weapons would not be deployed overseas at that time. France has developed and tested a neutron bomb successfully, but it has not yet decided whether to produce and deploy it. The Soviet Union claims that, although it has tested a neutron bomb, it has never started production of that weapon.

What about China? There is little information about the neutron bomb in open literature, yet Chinese Defense Minister Zhang Aiping said recently at a memorial service for China's leading nuclear scientist, Deng Jiaxian, that Deng made important contributions to the theory of atomic and hydrogen bombs and their successful testing as well as major breakthroughs in the principles of new nuclear weapons and their research and testing. What kind of new nuclear weapons? Do they include the neutron bomb? Minister Zhang Aiping did not mention this weapon. Maybe China is not developing the neutron bomb now, but at least we can say that China, as a nuclear country, has the ability to develop it and is interested in it. Does China need neutron bombs? This report reviews U.S. and French plans for deployment of the neutron bomb and, further, evaluates the practicality of neutron bombs for China from the perspective of China's politics, strategy, geography, and technical and economic capabilities.

Papers from a conference on the topic, "Prospects for Peace and Cooperation in the Asian-Pacific Region", held in China from September 11 to 14, 1985.

This article will consider whether the principles of the Geneva Protocol have become so widely accepted that they apply to the United States even though it is not a party. It will analyze the effect of existing reservations to the Protocol, discuss the United States use of tear gases and herbicides in Vietnam in light of its provisions, and recommend that the Protocol be approved by the Senate. This article will first describe the international agreements dealing with poison gas and germ warfare, and the reasons which prevented the United States from becoming a party to them.