of means availabl-e for implementing this threat has become vider" more conplex and more diversified. This does not mean that nifitary doctrines have no effect on the development of different types of veapon systems. The doctrines fofl:o a theoreLical con0p-Lex that serves as a basis for d.efence nol icy and " consequcnt,ly, for the acLuaI d-cplolment of milirary forces, wilh all the research, oevelolr-ent and flanufacture of new veapons that this implies' On the 'whole, hor,rever ' it is the technological developnent that has promoted a readiustment of ni.l-itary doctrines rather than the doctrines that trave prompted the development of the different weapons systems now possessed by the naior rnilitary Powers. 3OO. As _Long as deLerrence betveen the super-Powers remains linked to the concept of populatians held mutually hostage, it is obvious that the introd.uction of any ner,r technology that nay be perceived as potentialfy enabling one to disarnn the cther by a firsr strike, r'rilI be regarded. as a destabilizing factor, though this argrment has often been used to keep the arms race going. The construction ofAl351i.:)? Engli sh Anrrex Paa{e iol
**Analysis**
The text discusses the development of military doctrines and weapon systems, and how technological advancements have influenced their evolution. It also touches on the concept of deterrence and the potential destabilizing effects of new technologies. Based on this, it seems that the text is more focused on the role of science and technology in shaping military strategies and international relations.

**Category**
Science and technology