This line of reasoning is not simply an enormous rationalization for an arms race. It does indeed suggest that “disarmament” in the literal sense, aimed indiscriminately at weapons of all kinds—or even selectively aimed at the most horrifying weapons of mass destruction—could produce instability rather than stability, and might have to be completely successful in order not to be disastrous. Nevertheless, there is an important area of arms limitations that is not only compatible with the foregoing analysis but is suggested by it.

QUESTION: Which specific categories of arms limitation remain compatible with this stability logic? Worth examining the proposed boundaries of feasible disarmament. Builds on: "Publicly declared no-first-use policy paradoxically deters rival attack."

Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 546