DISARMAMENT

INTRODUCTION

Over two centuries ago Tom Paine spoke out the mind of many people when he said: “These are
times that try men’s soul.” What would he say today, were he present in this world to see the
frightful weapons of the nuclear age.

The world got its first taste of what nuclear weapons bring mankind in August 1945 when the
United States dropped Atom Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each had a yield of about 20
kilotons which is equivalent to 20 thousand tons of TNT. Both were detonated at a height of
some 550 meters. Within seconds the rapidly growing swirling ball of fire assumed the shape of
a mushroom cloud hovering over a pillar of black smoke and dust. The heat generated by the
explosion caused massive fires. In Hiroshima alone over 200,000 people perished. To this day
there are some 300,000 people in Japan suffering from the various effects of radiation disease.
Over seventy four years have passed since that fateful day in August and nuclear weapons are
now in possession not only by the 5(five) super-powers but by other countries as well.

The advent of nuclear weapons and the appearance of a variety of delivery systems that can
take nuclear warheads to any point on the globe with near complete accuracy have added a
totally new dimension to the question of future form of warfare. Over the years, nuclear
weapons and nuclear technology has improved and their destructive capacity has grown so
much that a world-wide nuclear war would mean the end of civilization and of every living thing
on this green planet.

The present total of nuclear explosive devices in the world is equivalent to more than a million
bombs of the type exploded over Hiroshima. This nuclear stockpile has eight thousand times the
destructive power of all the bombs and explosives used in World War II. It is equivalent of 15-30
tons of TNT for every inhabitant of this planet. And these terrible figures are all the time being
superseded by ever more fearful ‘records’. Scientists say that if the arms drive continues at the
present rate, in the near future it would be technically possible for the earth to be turned into a
fire-ball, devoid of its life-sustaining atmosphere.

A thermo-nuclear war presents a common and terrible threat to all nations, irrespective of
whether or not they were participants in the conflict. Every new technical advance in nuclear
weaponry leads to a blurring of the distinction between tactical and strategic weapons.

Though more than 70 years have passed since the World War II and there has not been another
war despite sharp international conflicts and constant tension. A Third World War has not
broken out because the doctrine of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) has made it pointless.
MEANING, NATURE AND DEFINATION

Disarmament in general sense cannotes the idea of limitation, control or reduction of

armaments. It is an extremely loose and flexible term that has implications ranging from the
ordinary limitation of arms to their complete elimination. But regardless of its forms, its aim lies
in the reduction of existing weapons or their elimination or reduction to an extend that is
consistent with national and international security.

Disarmament is a conscious policy followed by nation-states which aims to guarantee

international peace and security-a pre-requisite to the preservation of life on our planet. It is a
state of peace in which nation-states voluntarily renounced weapons of warfare and war itself
as a means of settling disputes.

According to,

Morgenthau – “Disarmament implies reduction or elimination of armaments”

Charles P. Schleicher –“Disarmament means reducing or eliminating the material and human
instrumentalities for the exercise of physical violence. But over the years it has come to mean
anything having to do with the limitation, reduction or abolition or control of such
instrumentalities through voluntary agreements of two or more states”

Arms race itself is the root cause of bloody and costly wars. The possession of nuclear warheads
definitely increases the probability that they will be used. As a result an arms race increases the
psychological insecurity of states rather than providing them with a sense of security against
attack. Disarmament intends to reduce and eliminate armaments thus serves as an important
factor in reducing fear and tensions between states, preventing disastrous wars from happening
and helps in maintaining peace and security in the world.

Now, disarmament also differs from arms control in a way that, whereas disarmament implies
an idealistic goal of an once-for-all solution- whether it be a disarmed world or one in which
there is some kind of military ‘balance of prudence’-arms control is an aspect of military and
foreign policy in which conflict of interest is accepted as a fact of life, but one in which potential
recourse to conflict and violence can be kept under control by conscious recourse to adjustment
of military forces and policies in common interest of restraining the scope of violence.

TYPES OF DISARMAMENT

There are certain kinds of disarmament which are as follows:

1. Voluntary and Compulsory – The post-War II attempts at disarmament may be said to

be voluntary in nature because the nations are free to accept or reject a given
programme of disarmament. However, at times disarmament programmes may be said
to be almost compulsory, that is, certain nations are forced to disarm or have to
undertake disarmament against their will. For instance, under the Treaty of Versailles
(1918) the victor nations of WW I, particularly France sought to impose a number of
crippling restrictions on the size of the German army, navy and equipment.
2. Qualitative and Quantitative – Qualitative disarmament is concerned with the
reduction or abolition of only certain types of armaments for instance weapons of
crucial and strategic importance or other ordinary and non-strategic importance (e.g.
 the goal of SALT pursued by the superpowers, Partial test ban treaty, NPT, etc). The
quantitative disarmament aims at an overall reduction of armaments of most or all types
(e.g. the goal of most nations represented at the world disarmament conference).
3. Local and General – Disarmament may be spoken of in the context of some nations or
all nations. When it involves few nations it is local whereas general embraces all nations.
The Rush-Bagon Agreement of 1817 which concerned only United States and Canada
may be said to be an example of local disarmament. The kind of disarmament that the
United Nations has been seeking to achieve since WWII may be said to be a general
disarmament because almost all nations in the world are called upon to adopt the
programme of disarmament.
4. Comprehensive and Total – There is another distinction between general and
comprehensive disarmament. The former is one in which all or most of the great powers
participate but not necessarily with a commitment to do away with all types of weapons,
while the latter entails the control or prohibition of all armaments of all categories.
Comprehensive disarmament implies the ultimate achievement of a world order in
which all human and material means of warfare will have been abolished. After
comprehensive or total disarmament, the world would be free from armies and
weapons of all kinds.
5. Formal, Informal and Self-imposed – When nations after thorough discussions and
deliberations conclude an agreement or treaty for reducing or limiting weapons, it is
called formal disarmament. Partial test Ban Treaty, NPT, SALT-I & II, INF, START, CTBT,
etc. are examples of formal disarmament. Self imposed limits on violence are sometimes
more enduring than those found in treaties, and have even survived wars. Whether from
fear of reprisal, military impracticability or unwillingness to bear the onus for initiating
its use, neither the allies nor the axis powers used poison gas during WW II. During
Korean War(1950-53) both the adversaries exercised utmost restraint in the use of even
conventional weapons. Another example of self-imposed restraint is Gulf war (1991),
although the danger of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and nuclear weapons by the
US loomed larged yet better sense prevailed on both sides and the world is saved from
another holocaust. In addition to the above examples, there do exist several other
instances. Moreover, informal and tacit cooperation on arms control measures may take
place as has happened between the United States and the then Soviet Union.

NEED AND REASON FOR DISARMAMENT

The case for favour of bringing in disarmament may be highlighted in the following arguments :-

1. To Avoid War – Arms race can itself be the cause of bloody and costly wars. The
possession of nuclear warheads definitely increases the probability that they will be
used. As a result, an arms race increases the psychological insecurity of states rather
than providing them with a sense of security against attack. Disarmament intends to
reduce and eliminate armaments thus serves as an important factor in reducing fear and
tensions between states, preventing disastrous wars from happening and helps in
maintaining peace and security in the world.
2. To reduce the Destructiveness of War – Disarmament is also needed as it reduces the
sufferings and destructiveness of wars. This is perhaps the reason that some States have
 ratified agreements banning the use in war of destructive kind of weapons, e.g. chemical
and bacteriological weapons; and this is why destruction and banning of nuclear
weapons have been proposed.
3. Moral Reasons – Philosophically most solid argument is that war is morally, and by
extrapolation, so is the preparation of war. One can cite numerous examples from
history of war preparations and attendant arms race culminating in war. One such
instance is the European arms race preceding WW I. The Quakers, peace researchers
and the Gandhites are also against armaments on moral grounds. Lewis Mumford
believes in the ethical foundation of disarmament, while others like Betrand Russell,
Stephen King-hall and [Link] Mills are opposed to thermo nuclear war on pragmatic
grounds. These philosophers suggest that unilateral disarmament can help to reduce
international tensions.
4. Economic reasons – A reduction in a states’ armaments saves sizeable funds, which
could be diverted to programmes designed to improve the general welfare of the states’
citizens. In the timeless dilemma of choosing between ‘guns and butter’, the protagonist
of arms reduction favours the latter. It is argued that even if a small portion of the
millions spent on armaments everyday is transferred to peaceful purposes, the world
would be entirely different industrially and economically.
5. Social reasons – The problem of poverty , hunger, disease, illiteracy, housing and that of
raising standard of living is not only confined to the developing countries. Military
expenditure absorb resources which would otherwise be released for providing social
services.
6. Environmental reasons – Nuclear tests and nuclear explosions are having their
polluting effects on the physical environment and thus bring environmental hazards.
7. Political reasons – Political differences become pronounced by the fear and suspicion
which the arms race generates. Armaments which are supposed to provide security, in
fact, provoke the political difference. War is not an answer to any of man’s imminent
problems. The spirit of militarism is opposed to the spirit of democracy and peaceful
progress in the world.
8. Public Opinion – Another reason for disarmament is to win public opinion to one’s side.
The common assumption is that world public opinion in general favours disarmament. It
is therefore assumed, that people at home and abroad will be inclined to give sympathy
and support to a government that proposes disarmament. World public opinion usually
goes against a state that indulges in excessive arms race.

PROBLEMS & ISSUES IN THE WAY TO DISARMAMENT

The task of disarmament is fraught with many difficulties, problems and obstacles which are
enumerated below :-

1. Fear and Insecurity – There is an inverse relationship between disarmament and

security and nations have always preferred security. Until some system can be eveolved
whereby nations will actually be more secure with less arms, disarmament will remain a
far cry. Every nation, big or small, is busy in military preparedness. What prompted
these nations towards this preparedness is the fear. It seems impossible to reach any
agreement of disarmament in face of fear of insecurity which every nation feels. Nations
 are, in the words of kegley and Wittkopf, ‘caught in a vicious circle of fear and insecurity:
other’s arms provoke fear, fear stimulates the desire to arm for defense, armament in
turn encourages the enemy to increase its arms, and so it goes in a never ending spiral.
The chain is difficult to break and efforts to do so have failed whenever the underlying
fear has persisted.’
There remains a controversy over whether disarmament or security should come first.
Advocates of ‘direct approach’ urged that reduction and elimination of arms would itself
increase the security of nations by reducing the capacity and readiness of states to
attack one another. Pro-pounders of the ‘indirect approach’ countered that states would
not disarm unless in place of arms they gave up or agreed not to produce, they could
depend upon other states to give them equivalent or greater security. Thus, firmly knit
alliances or a functioning collective security system is a pre-requisite to any sound
disarmament.
2. Mutual Distrust – Every state views with suspicion the disarmament proposals put
forth by other. Every country feels suspicious about the intentions of other nations that
while it may effect a reduction in its armaments, others may not do so. This mistrust is
double edged-first, it hinders initial agreement and second, it might lead to the collapse
should a disarmament scheme be put into operation. Proposals for effective
international inspection and control were made in different disarmament commissions
and conferences. The then Soviet Union and the United States had also agreed upon the
forms of inspection. Yet, when one tries to find out a definition of these inspections, it
becomes impossible to get a clear answer. Infact, the Soviet Union and the United States
viewed these inspections as a cover for espionage. In the atmosphere of mistrust,
disarmament seems to be a dream. Prof. Schleicher points out: “If there were perfect
trust between nations, arms would be unnecessary and disarmament would not be the
problem”. Thus the crisis of faith is another difficulty that prevents effective
international control over arms manufacturing and testing activities.
3. Political Issues and Disputes – The greatest problem facing disarmament efforts are
not technical, but political. Nations think that their rivalry with other nations cannot be
eliminated in the foreseeable future, they fear that limitation on armaments will wrap
them in a rigid strait jacket which will allow them to adjust rapidly to technological
obligation. It can be said that arms control rests on the prior ability of nations to settle
their political disputes successfully, something they have not always done. Resolving
political conflicts without violence may be the key to arms control. As arms, after all,
may be less causes of war as they are symptoms of political tensions. Arms may be the
fruits but not the seeds of war. Nations do not indulge in war because they have arms;
they have arms because they think it is essential to fight. From this viewpoint arms
control cannot be brought about without resolving the political issues and disputes.
4. Super-Power Conflicts – The strained relations between the Soviet Union and the
United States during the cold war period served as a huge stumbling blocking the way of
disarmament. Also the escalating arms race reduces considerably the probability of
improved Soviet-American political relationship.
5. Advancement of Military Technology – Military technology has been making
progressive strides day in and day out. This advancement enhances arms race in two
ways : there is always a race among states to possess qualitatively superior weapons
and there is always a race among states to improve the quality of their own weapons.
There are atleast about half a dozen nations having nuclear weapons and twice this
 number is capable of producing the same. All this encourages other nations to join the
nuclear arms race. Also nuclear powers had constantly increased their nuclear
stockpiles in the post WW II period despite the presence of several treaties and
agreements. Thus the problem of nuclear disarmament becomes doubly difficult.
Military strength and capability and the possession of nuclear capacity in particular still
seems to confer prestige and esteem on nations. This lures even many developing
countries to indulge in arms race.
6. Lobby of Arms Industry – Lobby of big arms industry seems to influence the policy
options of the ruling elite and prevents any concession arising out of their policy-
planning and execution. The armament industry is one of the most lucrative industry in
countries like the United States, France, Britain, Russia, etc. The nations producing
weapons dictate prices, earn huge profits and also bestow political favours by supplying
modern weapons. The manufacture and sale of weapons have become the most
profitable business and unless measures are adopted to reduce the armament industry
in size, the disarmament measures may not prove effective.
7. National Interest – No nation overtly speaks against disarmament as such, but it views
any disarmament plan from the viewpoint of its national interest. During arms control
talks such conditions are put forth by some of the participants, which are not acceptable
to others. Consequently, disarmament conferences fail. It is a hard fact that meaningful
agreements have been very difficult to achieve. Arms bargaining is a game of give and
take, but all negotiating nations ‘typically want to take much and give little because
security is dear and fear is strong’.
8. Ratio of Arms reduction – When states endeavoured to reach an agreement on
disarmament, they faced a serious problem as to what should be the ration of arms
reduction for various states. Should each state be equal in armaments, or should one be
superior in armaments to others. This issue is always the first on the agenda of
disarmament conferences and commissions as to what should be the ratio among
armaments of different nations, and within that ratio how various kinds and quantities
of armaments are to be allotted to different states.
The fast technological developments have further complicated the problem of stable
arms-control ratios. Technology, on one hand make weapon system outdated which
have been banned yet at the same time can inspire states to make qualitative
refinements of their existing weapon systems. Technological developments thus further
aggravate the excessive difficulties of comparing the relative military strengths of
parties to an agreement.
9. Insincerity – Obstacles in the way of disarmament are also caused by the insincerity of
the nuclear powers to the cause of disarmament measures. This was evident from the
manner in which the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was drafted. This treaty does not
prohibit nuclear powers from possessing nuclear weapons but it stops the possession of
nuclear weapons by non-nuclear states. Its discriminatory, deceptive, monopolistic and
insincere.
10. A Utopia – The notion that a disarmed world would be a mere secure world does not
have any sound historical background, whereas the idea that military preparedness
enhances security does. According to many critics, peace through disarmament and
arms control is a utopian dream. The idea that arms control brings peace is a theory for
the control of violence that has not as yet been successfully executed. Like political
 realist, opponents of disarmament and arms control argue that weapons are not the
causes but rather the results of conflictive relationship.

CONCLUSION

In the past, disarmament has only concerned itself more with the problems of peace and
security. Today, this focus has slowly shifted towards development i.e., by creating a balance
between military expenditure and economic development in any state. United States
President, Dwight [Link] says - ‘Every gun that is made, every warship launched,
every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world of arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientist, the hope of its
children’. The social and economic consequences of military spending remain a cause of
concern. In many cases, savings on defence could make a big difference to human welfare
and development because if only a fraction of the vast military expenditure could be
avoided, there will be a huge pool of expenses saved which can be used for economic and
social development. As such, disarmament is not only a moral imperative to preserve and
maintain the peace and security in the world but a sheer economic necessity as well.

A great deal still remains undone on the disarmament agenda. By quoting John [Link], it
can be concluded ‘While we still have a long way to go, a general consensus can be reached
that the trend toward an even smaller role for nuclear weapons should be reinforced and
that work toward their ultimate elimination should be continued.’ Hope nuclear weapon
states will realise what Robert A. Manning said a few years ago, ‘Nuclear weapons are de
facto being devalued as the currency of power.