¹ E.g., the Dimensionality of Nations Project at Yale University under the direction of Rudolph J. Rummel, the work of Harold Guetzkow and Raymond Tanter at North- western University, and, most important of all, the research of Karl W. Deutsch. The. Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Journal of Peace Research carry interesting articles based on empirical research employing sophisticated statistical and computational techniques.

² To cite only one example, an examination of eighteen issues of World Politics (1956-1966) containing articles or review articles on the cold war and the armaments race indicates a surprising degree of uniformity of views on the major topics affecting American policy, as well as a uniform perception of Soviet aims and policies. Thus, out of twenty-one review articles and twenty articles surveyed, fourteen review articles and seventeen articles were based on a world view spawned by Acheson and Dulles. The rest, published more recently, demonstrate a greater flexibility and a willingness to question at least a few of the cherished official assumptions of the fifties and the early sixties.

³ Foreign Affairs, xxv (July 1947), 566-82.

⁴ Russia, the Atom, and the West (New York 1958).

⁵ For a lucid discussion of some aspects of this question, see Tucker, Robert C., “Russia, the West, and World Order,” World Politics, XII (October 1959), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ “A Fresh Look at Our China Policy,” New York Times Magazine (November 22, 1964).

⁷ The Cold War (New York 1947)Google Scholar.

⁸ For a critique of the policy of containment, see Masters, Roger D., “Goals for American Power,” Yale Review, LV (Spring 1966), 365–88Google Scholar.

⁹ Conor Cruise O'Brien, Contrasting Concepts of the United Nations (Leeds 1963).

¹⁰ Sathyamurthy, T. V., Politics of International Cooperation: Contrasting Concep-tions of U.N.E.S.C.O. (Geneva 1964)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Kahn, , On Thermonuclear War (Princeton 1961)Google Scholar and Thinking About the Unthinkable (New York 1962); Lagovskii, , Strategiia i Efonomika [Strategy and Economics] (Moscow 1957)Google Scholar.

¹² The few studies that suggest a fundamental reorientation of strategy have until recently emanated from outside the pale of the Establishment and have therefore had little impact. See Waskow, Arthur I., “Disarmament as a Special Case in Military Strategy,” World Politics, XVI (January 1964), 322–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Evan Luard, “Conventional Disarmament,” ibid., 189-204.

¹³ For a discussion of this aspect of Kennedy's presidency, see Horowitz, David, The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War (London 1965), esp. 355–97Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Singer, , Deterrence, Arms Control and Disarmament (Columbus 1962)Google Scholar; Etzioni, , The Hard Way to Peace (New York 1962)Google Scholar; Shulman, , Beyond the Cold War (New Haven 1965)Google Scholar; Osgood, , An Alternative to War and Surrender (Urbana 1962)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Unless otherwise indicated, all passages quoted in this section are taken from the book under review.

¹⁶ On the operational feasibility of dyadic studies of conflicts, see Rummel, Rudolph J., “The Dimensionality of Nations Project,” in Merritt, Richard L. and Rokkan, Stein, eds., Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven 1966), 119–29Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Rock makes the point that coexistence as postulated by the Soviets is not enough.

¹⁸ A Study of War, 2nd ed. (Chicago 1965).

¹⁹ Recent experiences in Yugoslav politics would indicate that some room must be provided for the possibility of communityward changes occurring in the Communist system. Also, certain interpretations of Chinese communism emphasize the firm basis of Maoism, or rather “Mao Tse-tung-ism,” in an appreciation of the paramount importance of the community as a whole in China.

²⁰ On this as on several other matters, Rock seems to accept without criticism the official American dogma about Soviet priorities, although impressive evidence to the contrary has become increasingly available during the last few years. For instance, see Nove, Alec, Was Stalin Really Necessary? (London 1964)Google Scholar.

²¹ For a typical example, see Niebuhr, Reinhold, “The Theory and Practice of UNESCO,” International Organization, iv (February 1950), 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critique of this view, see Sathyamurthy, 45-47.

²² Among examples of differences cited are those regarding the origins and use of power within society, the role of science, the means of controlling production for the ends of society, and willingness of elites to make the sacrifices necessary for world order.

²³ Thompson, Kenneth W., “Mr. Toynbee and World Politics: War and National Security,” World Politics, VIII (April 1956), 374–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ For a brilliant confirmation of this view, see Nove.

²⁵ It should, however, not be forgotten that the American response to Soviet space successes has not been dissimilar to the Soviet response to American nuclear successes during the period 1945–1955.

²⁶ Rock's discussion of the complementary and competing roles of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in American space projects is particularly illuminating. Any collaborative effort with the USSR would inevitably involve a high-level cooperation among these agencies and, through them, among the various opinion leaders of the general public.

²⁷ That mutual cooperation between countries ideologically opposed to each other need not in practice be inhibited in such spheres has been demonstrated during the recent visit of General de Gaulle to Moscow. One of the General's most spectacular achievements was the Soviet-French agreement by which France will be in a position to avail itself of Soviet rocket-launching facilities for some of its experiments.

²⁸ Winning Without War (New York 1964).

²⁹ Knorr, Klaus, “The Concept of Economic Potential for War,” World Politics, x (October 1957), 49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis (New York 1959)Google Scholar.

³¹ For a detailed discussion defending the behavioral persuasion against Waltz's attacks, see Singer, J. David, “International Conflict: Thre e Levels of Analysis,” World Politics, XII (April 1960), 453–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Korea: The Limited War (New York 1964)Google Scholar.