text: purv]-va-L, vo_1. Jrv_L_L, r\o" I tJanuary-.Febr-uary Jyr)j.A / ?,' /39? i:.nat 1sn -linnex Pa..e 108 credible". 351 Yet, tr,ro yeaas earlier, j,n I97.(, l4r. Brown had declared that ,any use of nucresr veapons r;ou]-d r,n the risk of rapid escalation; a ful1-sca1ethernonuclear exchan€e could result only in a catast,rophic outc ome for both the$oviet Union and the United States", 3?/ Considering the different funetions thateven one and the s arne expression of a.-doctrine might serve, the two views are notnecessarily totally contradictory. I"ir. Brorrn apparentry seeks to retain the optionof naking a selective nuclear response even if he thinks it improbable that theseoptions wourd be exercised vithout bringing about an automatic escalatlo.. 2. Nuclear doctrines of the Soviet Union 317. soviet nuclear doctrines are €enera11y not as openly expressed as is the case1n the united states. soviet thinking on the subject to a r,arge extent has to bededuced from very generar statenents, from niritary force dispositions €,'d frorusoviet 'ni.l-itary r,riting" This sets fimits for the general understanding 01. sovr:etdoctrines, and at the same time creates a greater degree of anbiguity, whichconsequently could poientially lead to misunderstandings. This anbiguity isregarded by the Soviet Union as a stabilizing factor and has been glllsgrariz.a r-,..others as a destabilizing force in the global military balance. 3fB' As r^ras indicated ea"lier, the concept of mil-itaJy doctrine is nornafry used ina broader sense in the soviet union than in the west. The content of sovietmilitary doctrine ean be divided into two separate, but interconnected gxouFs ofquestions - political ancl military.
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the nuclear doctrine of the Soviet Union and the United States, and how it relates to the risk of nuclear escalation. The language used is technical and focuses on military strategy, suggesting that the text is related to the field of defense and international relations.