Question: Deterrence, arms control or disarmament – which of these approaches to managing

nuclear weapons is most likely to enhance international peace and security?

Introduction

Arms control, explained in simple words, is a way of limiting the number of weapons or regulate their
use by bilateral or multilateral treaties. (Ministry of FA Finland) This definition of arms control is a
good starting point to understand how effective arms control is international politics. Not just that,
even though people might be connected to each other through the internet and they might be more
aware the time bygone, the world is still very divided and for a better word, “violent”. The conflict of
Ukraine-Russia, the problem of Taiwan, the mass shootings in USA and regions of western Europe,
the fall of Afghanistan are just the few examples. The reason these examples have been quoted here
are there is a constant inflow of arms and a looming threat of nuclear warfare. The doomsday clock,
as Mr Putin pushes his forces and transmits ‘threats’ is pushing it to midnight. (Browne 2022)

This essay argues that Arms control is our only logical option when it comes to trying to manage
nuclear weapons. This argument, because, only arms control can answer the security dilemma and it is
not viable to disarm 13,080 nuclear warheads. The first section of this essay looks at the history of
Arms Control from 1945-1991 briefly, section two answers the ‘why’ by looking at whether Arms
Control really works and it’s limitations, section three then moves on to effects of nuclear weapons
on the environment and section 4 looks at a triangular case study to show the complexity of Arms
Control. While there is no one section where comparisons are drawn between deterrence, arms control
and disarmament, the reader will see an underlying comparison between the three throughout the
essay.

SECTION 1

Arms control was a mechanism that was used to bring stability in the international order. There was
a .realisation post 1945, now that nuclear weapons were introduced, and an ongoing arms race
between USSR and USA called for control for arms. Both the countries amassed nuclear weapons,
and other combat weapons to ‘defend’ themselves from each other. (Gartner 2014:754) At various
instances during the period of 1945-1991 both the countries, therefore the world, came to brink of a
nuclear winter. (example. The Cuban Missile Crisis). Thus there was a shift. This shift was a sprout of
the realization that a slightest mistake or a miscalculation can lead to nuclear warfare. What followed
were number of bilateral and multilateral treaties. (Shazad 2018:1327) A few examples of the treaties
signed were SALT (1972) and SALT II(1979) among others. The objective of treaties like these was
to limit the number of warheads or to put a cap on the number of nuclear war heads a country could
maintain.

Arms control in this period has been very biased toward these two countries and in the later period of
Cold War to the P-5 countries of the United Nations. For example, the Non-Proliferation treaty (NPT)
has been critiqued for allowing just the P-5 nations to acquire nuclear weapons and not allowing any
third party to acquire nuclear technology (Shazad 2018:1328). It has been argued that countries with
genuine security concerns are constrained by treaties like these. (Shazad 2018:1328) This frustration
is what might be an indication the goals arms control has managed to achieve. Sure, countries like
USA, Russia, India etc. have nuclear weapons but many don’t. In a way treaties like these and limited
access to nuclear technology has saved the world from doom. Or has it?

One thing is for sure , arms control has questioned and forced countries to look for solutions for the
‘autistic dimension’ (Gartner 2014:756). ‘Autistic Dimension’ means the massing of weapons based
on what a country might do , rather than what it has already produced. It has made an attempt to
replace MAD: mutually assured destruction with ‘a new and a more stable form of deterrence’.
(Gartner 2014:757) This is something which is optimistic but also calls for transparency and
confidence building. This as the reader will see in the next section is not an easy task. As Hobbes had
said that ‘man as in states in International Relations is not trustworthy’ (Squassoni 2021:322)

Section 2

One observation when reading for this response, was treaties like SALT, SALT II are very specific in
nature about what they cover. For arms control to hold some legitimacy issues like strategic and non-
strategic weapons also needs to be covered. With a little more research on this a term for this came up.
‘Comprehensive Deterrence’, which covers not just nuclear weapons but many other conventional
weapons. Even though the question asks about nuclear weapons, this should not limit the readers from
thinking about other mass destruction weapons like chemical weapons, or small arms which have led
to many civilian casualties.

Arms control is supposed to prevent an escalation of a tense situation. A tense situation that might
turn into a war or a nuclear catastrophe. With the development of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons the issue of morality also becomes a problem. (Ventura 2018 : 38) The issue of morality
becomes a crisis when the world have instinctive and somewhat irrational leaders Mr. Donald Trump
or Mr. Kim Jong-un. Often when the leadership between two countries is not stable , there is a threat
of a nuclear catastrophe. As seen during Mr. Trump’s tenure as the US president, where there was
enhancing of military capability.

Many countries like the USA and former USSR and now Russia have spent decades building there
nuclear defences. These nuclear defences have been said to be used as a deterrence. It would be only
logical that countries opted for arms control. Arms control is like a barrier of ‘that’s it’ no more
nuclear weapons after this point. Whereas deterrence, promise of punishment to discourage strike, is
an integral part of arms control. Disarmament is another pole of among these three. Disarmament has
a lot of cost implications and even more, environmental. (Squassoni 2021: 321) In Disarmament not
only would countries pledge to ‘disarm’ their weapons, but they would have to defuse them. Defusing
them will harm the environment and would be like putting fire to millions of currencies of the
respective nations.

Even though deterrence is a part of Arms Control, history shows it does nothing to reduce stockpiles
and have them completely eliminated by threatening the other country. It only adds to the security
dilemma (Ventura 2018:41). Arms control tries to build trust and transparency among countries. In
doing so decreasing tension among countries. How is this trust and transparency built?

Enforcement and Verification are two ways which form an essential part of any arms control treaties.
Enforcement ensures if there are any violations. In doing so it keeps the signatory state in check and
there are punishments for it. Punishments include economic sanctions or cutting of diplomatic ties. In
the modern world trade is very important there are sanctions on that as well. Verification , includes
bilateral verification and multilateral verifications. Multilateral verification because it had various
countries involved in it makes in complex. This is where IAEA i.e. International Atomic Energy
Agency. This organization keeps a check on countries when it comes to nuclear energy and it
promotes peaceful use of atomic energy. Of course, there is a practical implication of countries
opting out of arms control treaties anytime or refusing to abide by them, which would mean not
allowing third party inspections for nuclear weapons. This is a puzzle for me as a responder to this
question as well. How do you navigate through this mistrust among countries? This is something
which has troubled many other authors as well. While arms control has done a lot to reduce the risk of
nuclear war. It has, in the contemporary times, crumbled under geopolitical change. Treaties like
Anti-Ballistic missile treaty crumbled under the mistrust. (UNIDIR) The next victim would be the
NPT. This does not mean NPT would disappear , rather its legitimacy will be weakened.

This is no way should weaken the support for arms control. A responsibility-based approach , where
an overriding concern may serve as a rallying point. This rallying point could be nuclear annihilation
in this case. As Gower suggests “ a stable nuclear world would absorb crisis without breaking
threshold”. (UNIDIR) He further suggests that there should be a code of responsibility which the
states should abide by. Another way by which the question of mistrust can be navigated is , in arms
control treaties in the future , the concerns of nuclear and non-nuclear states should be addressed .
This would do two things:

A. This would help countries identify constraints and concerns of the international security
environment.
B. This would also enhance how countries look at nuclear use and its humanitarian
consequences.

While point A is easily self-explanatory , what point B means is often times countries are busy
building nuclear weapons to protect their citizens, they forget about the humanitarian costs of a
nuclear strike. This in turn becomes a vicious cycle. Where building more and more nuclear weapons
just puts citizens into more risk. Nuclear weapons like other WMD often have taboos attached to
them. Arms control can build upon such taboos and help declaring weapons like these as “stigmatized
and morally illegitimate”. An example is that of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons after WW 1
were stigmatized because it was a very “unpleasant” way of dying. (Ventura 2018:47). Thus there was
a move to disarm then post WW 1 and even later. Similar thing can be done with nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, what happens is countries often sign arms control treaties because(Ventura 2018:43):

A. The lack the capacity to build WMD’s.

While them signing treaties ensures they will not build WMDs , which in turn means at least countries
other than P5 don’t add to the stockpile of nuclear weapons it is another criticism of treaties like NPT
and related. The treaties get support from countries which anyway were not going to build nuclear
weapons, which according to strategists leaves them hanging in danger(Fuhrmann 2016:533). For
example, NATO countries are under USA ‘nuclear umbrella’, which is completely based on trust. But
if USA were to back out , or the other nuclear capable nations were to back out, the ‘at risk’ countries
cannot do anything.

So, do arms control treaties work? International Relations scholars have made progress in trying
understanding how international institutions and treaties an influence state’s behaviour. But affect of
treaties like NPT remains unclear. NPT pessimists supported by empirical data (Fuhrmann 2016 538)
show that NPT has a little effect on state behaviour and development of nuclear weapons. But they
agree that arms control treaties sprout the opportunity for talks and the flexibility for nations to omit
certain clauses of the treaty according to the strategic scenario.

Section 3

“The mere assumption that atomic weapons may be used , for whatever reason, is enough to make
illusory any attempt to protect non-combatants”(Trezza 2021). This statement was given by Jakob
Kellenberger, a former Swiss diplomat during the 2010 NPT review conference. This statement is
important because until countries put a stop to nuclear weapons and try to constrain themselves with
treaties, protecting non-combatants is an illusion. But what this statement also shows how one
important aspect of nuclear weapons is never discussed. The environment.

Environment faces the brunt of nuclear testing. Even though these test are conducted in deserted areas
or ‘no man’s sea’ it does have an impact on the environment. A prime example of this is Marshall
Islands. Between 1946 and 1958, USA conducted a total of 67 nuclear tests. Not just did it destroy the
culture and livelihoods of the indigenous people of the Marshall Island, it completely destroyed the
agriculture and the aquaculture. The people of Marshall Island had to also face biological and
ecological consequences. (Jhonston 2008)

The reason this example has been cited here is because arms control treaties which put a stop to
further developing nuclear weapons become essential. If disarmament was to happen in the case of
nuclear weapons another place would used as detonation site. Harming more people whose voice
probably won’t reach us. There needs to be other ways of deterrence which don’t cost lives of people
and harm to the already failing environment. Thus, in review conferences of arms control treaties
climate change and nuclear weapons needs to be discussed more.

Section 4

Arms control has shades of grey. This can be seen the various complexities seen above. But it is also
the only option available to us, if thought about logically. But to further elaborate on the complexity
of arms control here is a trilateral example of China-India-Pakistan.

India and Pakistan have had issues since the two countries were born of one. Post partition India and
Pakistan have had issues on Kashmir, and have fought 4 wars. One in 1999, when both countries
were equipped with nuclear weapons. Both countries have nuclear capabilities which need to be
monitored by treaties. The explanation given for current weapon’s programmes is China. China
created its nuclear deterrence with fears of Moscow and Washington in mind. India is feared by
China and Pakistan by India.

Thus, it can be seen how the three countries are stuck in a deadlock. Any arms control and
disarmament move between India and Pakistan would be unsuccessful without the involvement of
China. Thus, it becomes important that with arms control treaties that there be some kind of parity.
This parity could be conventional or nuclear.

SO, WHY ARMS CONTROL?

1. Arms control benefits strategic stability. As mentioned above, it provides transparency which
in turn helps alleviating the pressure of in crisis situations. Helps countries to handle the
pressure of the worst-case scenario. Of course, having arms control treaty just for namesake
will not have any effects. The design is very important.
2. Arms control treaties creates conditions of transparency which then creates limitations which
leads to greater predictability. This happens in two ways. First, by imposing numerical
limitations on capabilities. Second, declaratory policies among the signatories.
3. Arms control also dampens the first strike incentives. (Linner 2021:4) Limits both offense and
defence capabilities. One of the problems here is arms control has the capability to reduce
weapons to a very low number, which can create new form of instability, leading to
vulnerability. Thus, there needs to be a balance. and
4. Arms control established communication lines which can help states to discuss any mistakes,
cheating if committed. Gives them an opportunity to rectify it without any sanctions. (Linner
2021:6). These helps states to build confidence and elucidate nuclear ‘thinking’. Building
foundations for co-op ventures.

Conclusion

Arms control has its own benefits and limitations. This response was an attempt to convince the
reader the logic behind why arms control is the only real option available to us. Arms control
demands a lot maturity from countries, both citizens and ministers, alike. Until the increment for
offense is cheaper than defence, an arms race will continue. (Squassoni 2021:326) What this
means , in practical terms , if China was to build more nuclear weapons , or build more carries
and submarines, India’s response should not be to the exact same, and engage in race, but rather
talk about arms control to China and ask them why do they require so many weapons.