Washington Law Review


To resolve the underlying doctrinal dispute, the United States must choose either to abandon SDI in favor of MAD, or vice versa. This choice is necessary because, as this Comment demonstrates, the two doctrines cannot be maintained simultaneously. Once this primary choice is made, the debate over the interpretation of the ABM Treaty resolves itself into the secondary question of whether to terminate the Treaty to allow effective pursuit of SDI, or to reaffirm that treaty to permit continued reliance on the doctrine of MAD as the basis of our nuclear deterrent. This Comment, after identifying the competing premises of deterrence, will analyze the methods to be used and the problems to be overcome in reconciling the Treaty with whichever strategic doctrine is eventually selected.

First Page