NUCLEAR ARMS DEBATE - 69 an opponent that the costs of action far outweigh anv benefits it mav derive, is fundamentally unsound and its contradictions have led directly to the escalation of the arms race. While it is not necessary to follow the evolution and .development, of this doctrine through McNnmara's strategy of a mix of deterrence and limited war, it is worth remembering that it was during the liberal Kennedy government that there was a massive build-up and that over the years a nuclear war became, not something to prevent, but a war which in Alexander Haig's famous statement, was winnable. Statements of this tvpe are not merely the random ravings of mindless individuals but are part of the climate of ideas which support and allow expression to such thinking. They are part of the growing militarization of our world. Paul Chilton's more technical analysis of the use and history of the meaning of deter, deterrent and deterrance is a detailed investigation of the word deter to argue that it is a 'trigger' for a set of meanings about cold war relations. He shows how 'morphism' can be built on the basis of a shared and known frame of reference and how political power is used to influence the information media. To return to the earlier point that it is not just a question of some hawks espousing agressive doctrines, Peter Moss shows by analysing a speech of Ronald Reagan and tabloids brought out by the Department of Defense and their annual reports, that there is a "strongly revised cultural primitiveness used in the service of military and political policies." (p. 46) His conclusions are that abstract virtues, like duty, honour and obligation, underpin the rhetoric of defense and this conflating of military and cultural values has led to the militarization of national perceptions and such a world view has to be countered by "imposing alternative words on the general consciousness." (p. 63) Specialization has, because of a growing complex vocabulary, cut off researchers from other fields and particularly in the field of linguistic analysis, the purposeful obscurity pursued by some of its most distinguished practioners (Lacan being a good example) has made much fine work inaccessible to many and difficult to evaluate for the non-specialist. The argument that clarity is a virtue appropriate to the discourse of persuasion and autocracy does not make for easier reading. The virtue of Chilton's book is that by explaining the concepts used in linguistic analysis, to those who might be unfamiliar with them, and bv applying them to the study of a concrete problem,—the nuclear arms debate—it offers a view not only of the specific forms in which an ideology for an atomic war is being naturalized, but also how these pervasive modes of thought can be countered. As Steiner in the concluding essay writes, "if we do not use all the available knowledge in the interests of liberty, oppressive institutions are likely to use it in the interests of restriction." (p. 228). It is this vision which provides a method to re-instate the voice of the victims that makes this a book of wide interest. BRIJ TANKHA Department of Chinese and Japanese Studies. Delhi Unweraity. Delhi