When a state develops a nuclear arsenal, these destructive weapons must be initially integrated into existing military forces and initially managed through existing civil and military institutions. The subsequent relationship between nuclear weapons and civil-military relations in possessor states is complex, however, and presents an important two-way puzzle. First, it is important to ask how existing patterns of civil-military relations in nuclear states have influenced the likelihood of nuclear-weapons use. Some scholars believe that military officers are less war-prone and hawkish than civilian leaders; others believe the opposite, that the military tends to be bellicose and biased in favor of aggressive military postures. Which view is right, especially when nuclear weapons are involved, is a question that has not been fully addressed in the literature. Second, it is important to flip the question around and also ask how nuclear weapons have influenced civil-military relations in the states that have acquired the ultimate weapon. Again, the answer is not clear. One might expect that the massive destructive power of these weapons would encourage much greater civilian involvement in military affairs. Yet, at the same time, one might predict that military organizations would maintain significant control over nuclear policy as they want to protect their operational autonomy, and because the perceived need for a prompt response would mitigate against tight civilian control.

The papers in this volume are revised versions of presentations made by the authors at a conference on economic reform in Russia, which was held at Stanford University on November 22 and 23, 1993. Professor Kenneth Arrow from Stanford chaired the confer­ence, which was sponsored by the university's Center for International Security and Arms Control ( CISAC), under the auspices of its project on Russian defense conversion, and by the Moscow-based Institute for the Economy in Transition. Speakers included all the authors in this volume, as well as other representatives of the Institute for the Economy in Transition, the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ( EBRD).

With the ending of the Cold War, regional conflicts have come increasingly to the fore.  U.S. foreign policy goals in such areas continue to involve a mix of U.S. self-interest (as perceived by governing elites, Congress, and sometimes the electorate directly) and a desire to see conflicts in the world resolved more peacefully.  Both of these factors have led and will probably continue to lead to U.S. military interventions in some of these conflicts.

This paper addresses the issue of what role--if any--U.S. nuclear weapons should play in these interventions.  We focus on the following questions: given a military regional confrontation between the United States and a regional power, under what circumstances if any should nuclear weapons be used?  What arguments militate for and against their use? Can one come to an overall policy recommendation in this regard?

We are well aware that the best way to deal with military confrontations is to prevent them. To some degree, military confrontations represent a failure of policy.  Nevertheless, these confrontations do occur, and on occasion, the use of nuclear weapons has been and may again be contemplated.  The paper reviews some such possible occasions.

With the significant changes in the Asian-Pacific security environment in the post-Cold War era, cooperation in the region becomes both attainable and necessary. Because the ocean plays such a significant role in the Asian-Pacific region, maritime security is becoming a vital element in regional cooperative security.

This paper argues that maritime security-including transparency measures, confidence building measures (CBMs), and naval arms control-is critical for cooperative securityin the region. Maritime security measures should be undertaken in both. undisputed and disputed
sea areas. When adopted in disputed sea areas, these measures help guarantee regional peace.

China would support these measures. Preoccupied with reform and economic buildup, China seeks to maintain peace and stability in the region, and would participate in AsianPacific security arrangements. China does not intend to become a blue-water power. Rather it plans to enter and support a maritime security process in cooperation with other countries in the region.

For more than half a century, we viewed one another through our gunsights.  Our ships passed each other on the tranquil watersof the world's largest ocean without so much as a sailor's traditional greeting.  Wary and suspicious, it was best to keep fingers on the trigger when warships passed in the night.

Now the Cold War is over.  Greater cooperation is evident not only in Europe, but also among the disparate nations of the Pacific Rim.  Despite widely divergent interests and agendas in this, the home of 60 percent of the world's people, trends are already becoming evident that point toward closer collaboration in a number of political, economic, and cultural endeavors.  The intersection of security interests, particularly at sea, suggests that the timing may be right to examine new forms of military cooperation as well.  While different threat perceptions have long militated against multilateralism in Asia, modest yet concrete steps toward naval cooperation inconceivable before the Cold War's thaw are now possible.

Although may problems face international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries in the years ahead, none is more important than gaining a lengthy extension of the non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Action on extension will be taken by majority vote of the over 160 parties at a conference called to consider this question in 1995. This paper will consider why a lengthy extension of the NPT is important; what options for, and obstacles to, extension exist and what the NPT's strongest supporters can offer the NPT members who are skeptical about a long extension in order to win their votes.

While the breakup of the Soviet Union received much publicity, few attempts have been made to throroughly analyze the attempt to create a successor alliance--the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This lack of attention may be explained by the poor performance of the CIS to date.  But it can hardly be accepted.  Presently at a crossroads, the Commonwealth has three basic options for the future: complete dissolution, consolidation along the originally envisaged guidelines, or some kind of transformation, each with unique and far-reaching consequences for both the newly independent states (NIS) and the world. Clearly, the final decision lies with the ex-Soviet republics. But the West seems to be in a position to effectively influence the republics' choice.

This paper discusses three different but closely related issues: What future exists for the CIS, if any? What are the current Western, specifically American, attitudes toward the Commonwealth? And what is the best course for the West to follow?

A remarkable tripartite collaboration. . . . A new and highly revealing account of how the Korean War began, based on a careful comparison of Chinese, Soviet, and even North Korean sources. The authors' achievement, from a historian's perspective, is roughly the equivalent of making a first flight around the hidden side of the moon. . . . An exemplary standard for the "new" Cold War history. -Atlantic Monthly

A fascinating and exciting book. Every expert on Soviet and Chinese foreign policy and every student of international relations and the Cold War will have to read it. I am awed by the materials that have been put together in this book; it is international collaboration at its very best. 

-Melvyn P. Leffler, University of Virginia

This title, the first using newly available resources from China and Russia, represents the opening of a new era in the study of Sino-Soviet relations and their effect on international politics. The credentials of the authors are the highest.
-Library Journal

This magisterial work provides the missing dimension of the Korean war - how policy was made on the communist side. Making use of previously unavailable Chinese and Soviet sources . . . this is likely to become the standard work on the subject.
-John Merrill, George Washington University.

Chapter in Democratic Reform and the Position of Women in Transitional Economies, edited by Valentine Moghadam.

Exploring the effects of the post-1989 developments in Eastern and Central Europe on the social and economic position of the women of the region, Valentine Moghadam explains how the economic crisis and subsequent development, social breakdown, and changing institutions and practices of the state have an impact upon women's roles and status. The volume combines a theoretical analysis of fundamental gender specific issues and empirical studies on aspects such as educational attainment, social security provisions, political representation, and level and type of employment. Several papers use comparative analysis, drawing on previous research into women's position during development in the Third World, and under socialism in the years prior to 1989. Countries covered in empirical case studies are Russia, Estonia, Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics, the former East Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria. The authors draw the conclusion that women are among the principal losers in the restructuring process, both through the rise in conservative cultures, and through the economic imperatives of competing in a market-based system.