Arms Control

Arms control is the adjustment of military forces given the capability and intent of a state's adversaries. Although the adjustment of military forces according to strategic ends has always been a part of statecraft, arms control did not become a coherent idea and a potential means of maintaining national security until the advent of nuclear weapons. The logic encapsulated under the term arms control originated among physical and social scientists involved in the development and implementation of nuclear weapons in the United States during the late 1950s and early 1960s.

The core assumptions of the arms control logic held by American proponents deal with the origin of interstate conflict and the impact of nuclear weapons. First, the cause of conflict between states is misperception of intention and behavior. Second, the scale of destruction incurred by those involved in a nuclear exchange precludes the possibility of victory. The first implication of these two assumptions is that cooperating with adversaries via treaties and conferences allows for communication, reduces the likelihood of misperception, and thus, decreases the chance for conflict. The second implication is that nuclear force structure should be designed and maintained to prevent an advantageous first strike while ensuring an invulnerable second strike. And the third implication is that advancements in technology providing a final nuclear advantage is unlikely, leaving politics as the best means of maintaining security in a nuclear environment.

Examples of prominent arms control agreements include U.S.–Soviet efforts to manage the nuclear arms race by signing and adhering to the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions represent multilateral treaties limiting nonnuclear weapons, although the Nonproliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties are agreements at the center of contemporary international debates.

American opponents of arms control challenge the cause of military conflict and subsequently the effect of nuclear weapons on military planning. First, opponents assume conflict occurs when a state fails to develop the military capability necessary to make credible threats to its adversaries. Second, the potential for destruction on a scale unprecedented in the history of military affairs does not preclude political leaders from the obligation to plan for military victory. The first implication is that cooperation with adversaries only allows them to gain an advantage and thus invites attack. The second implication is that a nuclear force structure must provide the capability for a first strike or deterrent threats will lack credibility. And the third implication is that technological advances may provide the means for gaining military advantage and thus enhance national security.