Arms Controland Disarmament

Definitional IssuesWhat is Arms Control?

How is this different from Disarmament?Does one lead to another?

Normative versus Practical dimensions.What causes Arms Control?Is Disarmament feasible?

Defining Arms ControlAny agreement among states to regulate some aspects of their military capability or potential. The agreement

may apply to the location, amount, readiness, and types of military forces, weapons and facilities

Arms control is an alternative approach to achieving international security through military strategies or

‘peace through manipulation of force’

DefinitionParticipants jointly regulate their abilities

to threaten each other and to drive a bargaining advantage in their context. So, an arms control agreement allows states to retain their relative ability to

bargain, but at the same time, reducing the cost of sustaining these abilities

Arms ControlIn its general conception, arms control is any type of

restraint on the use of arms, any form of militarycooperation between adversaries. Arms control can beimplicit or explicit, formal or informal, and unilateral,

bilateral, or multilateral. It is a process of jointlymanaging the weapons-acquisition processes of the

participant states in the hope of reducing the risk of war…Arms control [refers] to formal agreements imposing

significant restrictions or limitations on the weapons or securitypolicies of the signatories.

DisarmamentDisarmament rests on a fundamentally different

philosophical premise than arms control. It envisions thedrastic reduction or elimination of all weapons, looking

toward the eradication of war itself. Disarmament is basedon the notion that if there were no more weapons therewould be no more war. This is a compelling proposition,with enough truth to give it a very long life in the historyto popular impression, it is not necessarily abut reducing

arms levels.

Arms Control and Disarmament

Arms control attempts to stabilize the status quo and to manage conflict, to force. Although many

visceral opponents would be shocked at the thought, arms control is fundamentally a

conservative enterprise.

Disarmament, by contrast, is a radical one. Disarmament seeks to overturn the status quo;

arms control works to perpetuate it.

Major Arms Control Agreement

Agreement Signed by Provision Year Geneva Protocol 100+ Bans use of chemical weapons 1925

Antarctic Treaty Partial Nuclear 12 Prohibits all military activity in Antarctic area 1959

Test Ban Treaty 131 Prohibits nuclear explosions in the atmosphere In outer space, and under water

1963

Outer Space Treaty 127 Prohibits all military activity in outer space, Including on the moon and other celestial Bodies

1967

Treaty of Tlatelolco 35 Prohibits nuclear weapons in Latin America 1967

Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

191 Prohibits acquisition of nuclear weapons by Non-nuclear nations 1968

Seabed Arms Control 92 Bans placing nuclear weapons in o under the seabed 1971

Biological Weapons Convention 80+ Ban the possession and use of biological weapons 1972

Agreement Signed by Provision Year Strategic Arms Limitation Treat

(SALT 1)2 Provides for freeze on aggregate number of fixed, Land-based

ICBMs and SLBMs1972

ABM Treaty 2 Limits deployment of antiballistic missile systems Two sites in each country. Reduced to one site by 1974 agreement

1972

Threshold Test Ban 2 Limits U.S. and USSR underground tests to 150 kt 1974

SALT II 2 Limited the number and types of USSR and USA. Strategic weapons

1979

South Pacific Nuclear Free-Zone 13 Prohibits the manufacture or acquisition of nuclear Weapons in the region

1985

Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF)

2 Eliminates all U.S. and Soviet missiles with ranges Between 500 km and 5500 km

1987

Missile Technology Regime 25 Limits transfer of missiles or missile technology 1987

Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

30 Sets limits on NATO and WARSAW Pact tanks, Other armored vehicles, artillery, combat, helicopters And air craft

1990

Arms Control TreatiesEnvironmental Modification Convention, 1976

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR ), 1987

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, 1992 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I ), 1994

Wassenaar Arrangement, 1996 Washington Naval Treaty, 1922 (as part of the naval conferences)

Geneva Protocol on chemical and biological weapons, 1925 and its two augmentations:

Biological Weapons Convention, 1972 Chemical Weapons Convention, 1993

Outer Space Treaty, 1967 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 1972Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1996

Open Skies Treaty, 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty ( SORT), 2003

START Three (2010)

Arms Control – The Cold War Days

Theory developed as an adjunct to national security from 1958–1962.Instead of disarmament it emphasized enhancement of cooperative

security arrangements.Numerous institutional mechanisms.

Problems of trust.Problems of verification :The driver of arms control agreements

was the shared perception regarding the fear of a nuclear war between the two powers.

Arms control seen as a prime means of restraining strategic arms race, especially restraining the use of certain types of technologies

that exacerbated the threat of warThe objective was also to reduce the cost of war, and reduce the

damage of a war did occur

The Purpose of Arms Control

It is a means to an end which is enhancing security, especially security against nuclear weapons.

The three underlying principles of arms control are:It is a means to an end – national securityStates have a common interest in avoiding nuclear warArms control and military strategy should work together to promote national security (deployment of weapons or an adverse tactical maneuver).

Objectives of Arms Control

Should be in broad harmony with national security strategy.Arms control theory was developed during the Cold War to deal with the questions of :

What deters?How much is enough?What if deterrence fails?

MethodologyInstitutional mechanisms involving a certain

understanding regarding force buildup, strategic deployment, etc.

Improve strategic signaling Build channels of communicationIncrease exchange of information

InstitutionsAlliance or agreements - INCSEA, SALT or Indus Water TreatyPotential tools but remain on the sidelines of statecraft (Track-II, III…)Change preference over outcomes :

Institutions are important because they have the potential of generating powerful impact on the policymaking process e.g. Anglo-French Entente 1904.Institutional mechanisms create enduring patterns of shared expectation of behavior that gradually receive some degree of formal assent – INCSEA or Indus Water Treaty.

Arms Control in South Asia

There is a need for institutionalizing arms control arrangement because:

Nuclear weaponsConventional buildup

Existing disputesEndemic mistrust – a generational change that would

undermine peaceCountries pursing independent trajectories of socio-

political and military development

Present Situation

Technological expansion.Asymmetrical balance.

No Arms Control arrangement.Confidence Building Measures(CBMs) only.

VERIFICATION MEASURES

Designed to collect data or provide first hand access in order to confirm or verify a state's compliance with a particular treaty or agreement.

Aerial inspections Monitor compliance with force deployment limitations in restricted zones, confirm data exchanges on the disposition of military

forces, provide early warning of potentially destabilising activities. Ground-based electronic sensor systems (Manned or unmanned) Verify states' compliance to agreed restrictions on equipment deployment or

troop movements. On-site inspections Challenge and routine; help verify that states are complying with agreements. Inspections may be carried out by third

parties, opposing parties, or jointly.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) which entered into force in March 1970, seeks to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Its 188 states-parties are classified in two categories: nuclear-weapon states (NWS)—consisting of the United States,

Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS). Under the treaty, the five NWS

commit to pursue general and complete disarmament, while the NNWS agree to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

The START I at a GlanceJanuary 2002

START I was signed July 31, 1991, by the United States and the Soviet Union. Five months later, the Soviet Union dissolved, leaving four

independent states in possession of strategic nuclear weapons: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. On May 23, 1992, the United States

and the four nuclear-capable successor states to the Soviet Union signed the "Lisbon Protocol," which makes all five nations party to the START I

agreement. START I entered into force December 5, 1994, when the five treaty parties exchanged instruments of ratification in Budapest. All treaty parties met the agreement's December 5, 2001 implementation deadline.

The START II and Its Extension Protocol at a Glance

January 2003

Russia announced on June 14, 2002, that it would no longer be bound by its START II commitments, ending almost a decade of U.S.-Russian efforts to bring the 1993 treaty into force. Moscow's statement came a day after

the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, and a few weeks after the two countries concluded a new nuclear arms accord on May 24. The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which requires the United States and Russia to reduce their deployed strategic arsenals to 1,700-2,200 warheads apiece by December 31,

2012, effectively superseded START II's requirement for each country to deploy no more than 3,000-3,500 warheads by December 2007. Yet other key START II provisions, such as the prohibition against deploying multiple

independently target able reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), were not addressed in the SORT agreement.

The START III Framework at a Glance

January 2003With the signing of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), it appears unlikely that a START III agreement will be negotiated. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed SORT on May 24, 2002. The treaty calls

for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads, effectively matching the limit of 2,000-

2,500 warheads proposed for START III. SORT does not, however, address strategic nuclear warhead destruction or tactical nuclear weapons limits, both ground-breaking arms control measures that were suggested for inclusion in START

III.

ConclusionThus after this presentation, maybe we can reach to a non-debatable agenda about

this topic. We demonstrated a part of World Disarmament and the treaties that were signed during this immense process. Arms Control and Disarmament, both are different, yet their meaning merge at some point of time. We don’t wish to witness a World War III where we lose many lives as well as natural beauty and witness loss of a state. Thus we presented this topic on World Disarmament and Arms Control to

show the International level of Disarmament and Arms Control that’s keeping us safe. We had to leave out United Nation’s contribution to the World Disarmament

and Arms Control Method, because it’s contribution is huge in these cases. Thus we would like to thank UN and the nations governing it. It is because of their endless efforts we are safe and sound. And also we would like to thank the million Army

men of all the countries for gaining such an achievement as Nuclear Disarmament.

Thus I would like to conclude by quoting Bernard Baruch : ”If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow

disarmament- disarmament follows peace.”

Thank You