The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

Initially it appeared as though the US viewed the negotiation as win-lose situation. This was not the case at all considering that both sides came together voluntarily in an effort to act in the interest of both parties. The strategy of the US for the majority of the negotiation process was that of positional bargaining. For three years the US was unwilling to budge in regards to the number of anti-ballistic missile sites the Soviet Union would have. Originally the US suggested that they should maintain four sites to the Soviet Union’s one and later reduced the number to two to one before finally settling on an agreement that would allow both parties to maintain the same number of anti-ballistic missile sites. The position of the US was clearly unfair considering that if the Soviet had agreed with their proposal, the US would have had the clear advantage in the event of a nuclear exchange between the two powers. Had the US achieved the proposal they desired it would have been a lose-lose situation because they would have been more tempted to carry out a preemptive nuclear strike, an act that both sides were working to avoid. From the beginning the Soviet Union was willing to agree on the two to two proposal which was ultimately used. If I were
The objective of these talks were to ensure the safety and security of both states and the international community as a whole by slowing the arms race. Although the US appeared to take a positional negotiation position that was intent on winning while having the Soviet Union lose, the end result was a win for both parties. Overall, I would say the negotiation was handled well by both parties and the outcome was both fair and just. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ultimately led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty which successfully deescalated the conflict and ensured that a nuclear exchange would not take