Arms Control

Arms control is the cooperative regulation of armaments and armed forces among potential opponents in armed conflict. While there were efforts for international limitation of armaments before 1945, arms control became a prominent part of international policy during the Cold War, under the threat of nuclear war. But it took the experience of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 before the [Page 21]first arms-control treaties could be agreed upon. According to the classic theory, arms control has three major goals (1) prevent war or reduce its probability; (2) limit the damage produced in war; (3) limit military spending. The three goals are not necessarily consistent, for example, damage limitation by widespread population shelters or ballistic missile defense can be seen as part of preparations for nuclear attack; weapons produced more economically can be destabilizing. As a consequence, the first goal should have clear preponderance. Arms control has a long history, and is an important factor in global security today. However, the development of new types of weapons based on nanotechnology may require revision of many arms controls treaties and rethinking current trade-offs: for instance, between restrictions placed on weapons inspectors to protect the privacy and integrity of the country being inspected, versus the kind of access they require to do a thorough job.

Arms control proceeds from the acceptance of the fact that countries have armed forces. The fundamental reason for the latter is that—different from the status within countries—in the international system there is no overarching authority with a monopoly of legitimate violence which can guarantee the security of the countries. As a consequence, countries try to provide their own security by the threat of using armed force against an aggressor. Because generally fighting strength in defense provides offensive capability, too, efforts for one's own defense will in parallel threaten others. This, in turn, creates motives to strengthen their armed forces so that a continuing arms race, quantitative and qualitative, follows. New types of weapons are typically faster, have longer ranges, and can hit more targets more precisely, increasing the pressure to act fast, and as a result, stability deteriorates. Thus, as a consequence of the systemic interactions, efforts to improve the respective national security lead to decreased security of all. This is called the security dilemma.