Disarmament

As the world saw in 20th century two World Wars destroy titans and all but decimate entire

generations of young men, peaceful relations have become more crucial to maintaining world

order and altruism. The nuclear arms race of the Cold War has ended thankfully without war or

significant destruction. However, the only way to maintain absolute world peace is the

disarmament process. War is an effective method to assert will, but with the advancements that

have been made in weaponry and war, it comes with it a cost we can nary afford to pay.

Approximately 120 million landmines remain buried and armed in 71 countries worldwide. Two

to five million new landmines are planted each year. In particularly war-torn countries such as

Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, and Bosnia, millions of landmines remain. Even in countries

that haven't seen war in years, such as Vietnam and El Salvador, mines still pose a threat.

Landmine clearance is incredibly expensive, labor-intensive, and inefficient. Due to high metal

content of the soil in some parts of the world, metal detectors are rendered nearly worthless. In

areas where detectors can be used, they often turn up war debris and are little help. Though

mines cost only $3-$30 to produce and arm, finding and disarming them may cost up to $1,000.

Furthermore, minefields prevent humanitarian organizations from providing aid to those who

may be in need; they restrict accessibility, and endanger those who do enter suspected mine

zones.

Landmine casualties and injuries are devastating and unnecessary. Landmine victims require four

times as much medical care as those suffering from other war-related injuries, perhaps because

those 'other injuries' often kill. Treating a landmine victim costs $3,000-$5,000, is a significant

amount in developing countries. 2,000 people a month, about 25,000 people a year are maimed

or killed by land mines.

The armament race poses a great threat to world peace. Almost all the countries have been

involved in the arms race. At the time of the Second World War USA was the only country

1

which had developed the atom bomb which it used with devastating effect to end the war. By and

by other countries like Great Britain, China, Russia, and France also developed the bomb.

The developing nations are not far behind. They are also joining this race. India, a peace loving

country, was also compelled to do so in 1998 to assure its people regarding national security.

This race for armament has created a serious challenge to international stability. It has exposed

the whole world to great danger.

War Countries remain in a constant state of preparation for ar. There is also a danger of nuclear

device exploding and annual war erupting because of human or mechanical error.

It is estimated that there are enough nuclear weapons in the world today, to wipe out the whole

planet several times over.

In such a situation when there is a crying need for peace disarmament is the only hope of

humanity. It is necessary today for the very survival of mankind. It is necessary to put a check on

the imperialistic designs of certain countries.

India is never in favour of arms race. One of the basic principles of India's foreign policy is

disarmament. India supports the reduction of arms and elimination of nuclear weapons by

all the countries of the world. It is therefore that she did not sign CTBT (Comprehensive Test

Ban Treaty). The CTBT has so far failed to set any deadline for complete nuclear disarmament.

What we need today is world peace and international stability. Unless the countries will

follow the policy of disarmament, nothing good can be achieved. Though] undoubtedly, some

progress has been made through talks and proposals in paper still race of armaments continues

unabated. And this is the problem of disarmament.

To wide-spread of peace, first we need change in the minds of all. Speech and action, increasing

fear and hatred must be avoided. It is a fact that we cannot establish peace all over the world in a

day or two, it can be achieved by and by. It all depends on us. If every country extends its hand

2

in the way to restore peace, a day will definitely come when we will embrace each-other with an

emotional feeling of brotherhood. There will be no war, no arms, and no violence.

The UN's non-stop efforts in this direction are going on. Its chief objective is Disarmament

which must not fail because it in the base of peaceful co-existence. We must be hopeful.

World Peace and Nuclear Weapon Disarmament Politics

The world nowadays is in danger of nuclear-conflicts. The numbers of states that own nuclear

weapons has increased. The international security is threatened by the long lasting arms race

between nuclear weapon states (NWS) such as the US, Russia and China. The Treaty on Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon (NPT) as the legal international instrument, has the ethical rules

to bind its parties to reduce the nuclear weaponry and to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear

power. Unfortunately, weak political will hinders the state’s capability to prevent the contest. In

the name of national interest and security, big military budget states are continuing their nuclear-

modernisation program. Some action should be taken for the international stability and security.

Weaponisation could be interpreted as the transfer of material to a weapon, it could be

biological, chemical or nuclear material and can be deployed or integrated as a weapon [1] .

Even in the name of national interest and security, the ability to weaponize and converting

nuclear power for weapon should be limited. The impacts are too lethal. People still wondering

as the influence so great, can the race be stopped? Is there any ways to avoid the nuclear

weaponization program? Nuclear should be used only for the world harmony. In this regard, this

essay would describe the danger of nuclear weaponization and some ways to put a stop on these

matters.

Since Willliam Rontgen found the ionizing radiation in 1895 (Britannica Encyclopedia) [2] , the

know-how has been developed to produce nuclear weapon. Conversely, the world development

has shown the tendencies of conflict escalation and the common response to overcome the

3

problem by hard power resolution. It can be seen in some hot points in the world nowadays, such

as the Middle East, whether Israel – Palestine, or an Alliance (lead by the US) - Iran, or

Afghanistan. The reality that Israelis unconfirmed themselves as the nuclear weapon-possessed

state or Iran that had been accused of using their uranium enrichment facility to create nuclear

weapon, had worsen the regional situation. On the other place, North Korea, India and Pakistan

improved their influence by testing their nuclear capability. These events have signaled the

capability of using and producing nuclear power and ready develop to the higher level – nuclear

weapon.

Nuclear Weapons as a threat

The increase in China’s military budget for 7.5% in 2010 (about US$ 78 billion) [3] , is a

warning of China trying to take part in balancing weaponry capacity with other super power

states. Every year China steadily rises its military spending. Not only China, other states namely

Russia, France, UK, India and Pakistan have the same objective in order to strengthen its

national security and spend big amount of its state budget to cope with their state vulnerability.

People are troubled knowing this progress. The threat comes from the power they possessed by

too great. One sensitive issue could ignite nuclear-possessed countries to release the power and

drag others to start World War III. The World has history of irrational leaders that possibly use

the power to force other to do their will. Such leader was Pol Pot of Cambodia that killed

thousands of his people for opposing him, or Hilter probably. What if leader such Kim Jong Il of

North Korea implement his threat of using nuclear weapon towards the US and South Korea [4]

for their join exercises after the sink of South Korean warship? The region tension is soaring and

agitating its stability.

The impact caused by the nuclear explosion is frightening. The magnificent power and the

impact of nuclear-contained weapons has been proven, for example in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

Japan, which were destroyed and this forced the country to surrender to the alliance in 1945. The

other effect on humanity from that event can also be seen until today. Radiation has a mutating

effect on human genes. The Japan Times online news agency on the 6th of August 2010,

reported that the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing 65 years ago suffered from

4

dementia and various cancers [5] (lung, thyroid, breast and other organs), respiratory diseases

and an acute leukemia without any effective medical treatment.

The nuclear accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine, a small suburb area not far from the border with

Belarus, is another illustration of this case. The nuclear plant exploded, causing radioactive

pollution not only in the surrounding area, over western parts of the former Soviet Union, but the

radiation also spread over to eastern and western Europe, some Nordic countries and eastern

North America. This disaster had lead to a big evacuation and resettlement of over 336.000

people (World Health Report, 2007).

The fall of communism in the former Soviet Union was the end of Cold War between the US and

Soviet Union. The arms race among the two states is also supposed to end. In fact, both sides still

have large number of heavy weapons that are feared by other countries for its potential as a

weapon of mass destruction (WMD).

As the country has the border, technology has given the ability to shorten it and has provided the

unlimited efforts to make it borderless. Since the 1950s, the US and Soviet Union had already

developed the medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and intercontinental ballistic missiles

(ICBMs). India, which successfully tested long range missile capability on the Agni-III in April

2010 [6] , considering the development of Agni-V that could carry 1.5 tons of nuclear warheads

with about 6 kilometers of range [7] . Compared to India, Russian Iskander-E could travel 280

kilometers, while American Minuteman III and Chinese DF-5A at 13,000 kilometers

respectively [8] . Some of the missiles can be carried by a mobile launcher, submarines or

aircraft carrier. This development should be considered as endangering the regional security.

What will happen if the missiles shot and missed the target or landed in the wrong country?

Imagine if the missiles also were nuclear or contained another WMD. Definitely, one missile is

capable of eliminating countries from the world map.

Another missile test conducted by China in the beginning of 2007 and repeated in 2010 were the

Chinese anti-satellite system (ASAT) which successfully shot disused satellites. Although the

5

experiments caused millions of pieces of debris, and posed a threat to space navigation in the

future, China argued that it would be safe for orbiting spacecraft. In contrast, another state would

regard this event as threat to their long range missiles. Meanwhile, outer space will be the new

play-ground for an arms race. Again, the incident could drive to the contest of weapon upgrading

to exceed any parties’ ability.

Disarmaments

Constantly disarmament should be done. It is important to forbid the manufacture and purchase

of nuclear weapon or the nuclear power states must reduce and eradicate the weapon. The Treaty

on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is the cornerstone of the international

security signed on July 1st 1968 by the five permanent members of the Security Council of the

United Nations and 59 other countries, and came into force in 1970. In 1995 the treaty was

prolonged to indefinite extension and 189 states are parties now. Five states are recognized as

nuclear weapon states (NWS), there are the US, Russia, the UK, France and China, the other

parties are known as non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). The United Nations in the official sites

describes the purpose of NPT to avoid nuclear weapons and its technology extending all over the

world, and to support the disarmament program. NPT also protects the parties rights to develop

nuclear for peaceful uses. It is a significant move to any states to join forces and build

partnerships. A status quo is not recommended. Any parties must support this act to move

forward peaceful world as the international security and stability are needed to shelter economic

growth. And the most important factor here is political will.

The big event of the year was conducted in Prague – Czech Republic, on April 8th 2010, Russia

and the US signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This treaty will replace

the old START which expired in December 2009. Article II of the START clearly states the

numbers of the deployed or non deployed heavy arms that should be reduced within seven years

after the agreement come into force [9] . The aggregate limit is 1,550 warheads and 700 ICBMs.

Even though the remaining weapons in existence alter the treaty still have the power to eliminate

the entire world, this occasion has great meaning in reducing and stepping forward for

eliminating nuclear weapons. Within a week, in Washington, on 12 April 2010, at the Nuclear

Summit 2010 hosted by President Barack Obama, 47 world leaders agreed and emphasized the

6

prevention of the ownership of nuclear weapon from the terrorist. For the reason that terrorist has

the character to utilize the power to threaten and without any hesitation use it for their goal.

The rigid manner to encourage the reduction of nuclear weapon could be done by an

international ban toward nuclear power states. An economic embargo is one of the choices. By

limiting the economic capability, one country should re-think their attempts. North Korea could

be one of the states that have the most US concern of its embargo. The main sanctions imposed

are the arms embargo, luxury goods embargo, inspection of the cargo from and to North-Korean

seaport (USA Today, 2010) [10] , the US government also freezed 10 North Korean Bank

accounts in all over the world and keep searching another account related to the country’s

activities [11] (Joongangdaily, 2010). The new US sanction has more isolated North Korea for its

stubbornness continuing their nuclear project and stay away from the mediation table. The same

action had been done by the US to Iran.

Conclusion

The world needs peace not conflicts. Arms race threatens the serenity of the world. Stability and

security creates peace. Complete disarmament would be the best way to reduce the nuclear

weapon, but it is important to have strong will NWS leaders. In the beginning negotiation and

partial disarmament would be excellent followed by arms control. The cooperation and confident

measures building as the instrument should be increased to facilitate parties of NPT’s voluntarily

reduce their deadly weapon. Embargo should be the last option.

Disarmament

7

Disarmament refers to limiting or eliminating the use of weapons. Disarming can defuse a

dangerous situation because it is generally seen as a gesture of good intent. Disarmament often

reduces fears and tensions and paves the way for greater cooperation. However, it is sometimes

feared, as it is seen as leaving one open to attack from an enemy who has not also disarmed.

Disarmament

By

M. Shane Smith, October 2003

In March of 1946, less than a year after the first detonation of an atomic weapon, a group of U.S.

officials met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C., to develop the first nuclear arms control

proposal, calling for comprehensive nuclear disarmament. This plan was introduced on June 14,

1946, at the inaugural session of the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission by U.S. Ambassador

Barnard Baruch. He proposed a complete transfer of all atomic weapons, facilities and know-

how to international oversight. The proposal was viewed with skepticism by the Soviet Union

and denounced as an attempt by the United States to maintain nuclear superiority. These fears

were reinforced when the U.S. Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act to establish the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission as sole manager of all nuclear materials and facilities in the United

States, and to prohibit all interstate exchanges of atomic information.

It was not only disagreement between the Soviet Union and the United States that cut short this

attempt at nuclear disarmament. Britain and France were also unwilling to support the plan in

light of their own nuclear ambitions. As the East-West confrontation of the Cold War became

increasingly rigid, subsequent efforts toward disarmament were hardly given consideration. The

world missed an opportunity to avoid a costly and potentially devastating nuclear competition,

pointing to an intractable problem of distrust in the international system -- the security dilemma

-- that presents significant obstacles to disarming. By the end of the Cold War, there were over

50,000 nuclear warheads able to make the world uninhabitable many times over, keeping

tensions high and global security uncertain for nearly 50 years. Today, much of these arsenals

remain intact.

8

A decade after the end of the Cold War, we are witnessing a renewed surge in worldwide defense

spending, and the specter of nuclear catastrophe has again become headline news. Optimistic

notions of eliminating bloated military expenditures and nightmarish weapon systems that

accompanied the fall of the Soviet Union have given way to cynicism, doubt, and a reemphasis

on military prowess. However, alarm that has risen with the prospect of widespread development

of weapons of mass destruction (generally encompassing nuclear, chemical, and biological

weapons) has led to many renewed calls for eliminating such armaments. Moreover, a realization

that the overwhelming majority of the tens of millions of casualties from post-World War II

conflicts have resulted not from advanced weaponry but from common and widely prevalent

weapons, such as landmines and guns, has also heightened efforts toward disarmament of

conventional weapons.

What is Disarmament?

In general, disarmament is the reduction in size or destructive capability of an actor's capacity for

violence. Despite pessimism that generally befalls discussions about disarmament (e.g., labeling

such proposals as unrealistic and euphoric), there is reason to believe that disarmament is a

viable tool for reducing the likelihood and dangers of conflict. Even during the Cold War,

President Nixon unilaterally declared that the United States would disassemble its biological

weapons program, encouraging others to join the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and

helping pave the way for detente between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. More recently, as the Soviet

Union collapsed, the United States dramatically and unilaterally withdrew its tactical nuclear

weapons deployed abroad. Moscow responded in kind, helping alleviate the chance of a nuclear

exchange as the Soviet leadership lost command and control of its military forces. Disarmament

measures, however, have not solely been aimed at state-to-state relations. Domestic initiatives

have employed disarmament efforts toward reducing violence at the inter-group and local levels.

For instance, citywide gun exchange programs in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Chicago

have been successful in reducing the number of local firearms and arguably overall gun-related

injuries.[1]

There are three different ways of viewing disarmament -- unilateral or voluntary, through

bilateral or multilateral agreements, and forced disarmament. Unilateral and bi/multilateral

9

arrangements are often overlapping initiatives. As the preceding paragraph suggests, unilateral

disarmament is often an effort to encourage others to follow suit. For instance, during the 1990s,

South Africa voluntarily disclosed and dismantled its nuclear weapons and long-range missile

programs, which led to a region-wide moratorium on atomic weapons through the development

of an internationally recognized African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. Additionally, actors in an

ongoing conflict sometimes seek to defuse tensions through disarmament measures. Recognizing

that one's own weapons generate fear among potential rivals that can feed uncertainty and

hostilities, an actor may choose to decrease such anxieties by voluntarily reducing the size or

destructiveness of its own arsenal in hopes of reciprocal behavior from others. This was the case

when the United States dismantled developments in its biological and tactical nuclear weapons.

Over the last century, several efforts have also been made toward global elimination of weapons

deemed too cruel or unnecessarily injurious. For instance, the Chemical Weapons Convention,

the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and the Anti-Personnel Landmine Ban are

international agreements that outlaw the development, sale, and use of such weapons. While not

universal, these arrangements often require many states to remove specified weapons from their

existing arsenals. The result is multilateral disarmament even while others in the international

system continue to possess the capability and potential willingness to use such weapons. This

suggests a strong inclination for some countries to risk disadvantage if confronted with such

weapons in the future, in favor of trying to establish norms for the conduct of war Moreover,

these efforts to stigmatize particular weapons have led to calls for meaningful verification and

enforcement of the agreements through global pressures in the form of sanctions and incentives.

Recent crises in the Persian Gulf demonstrate that forcible disarmament is also an approach that

is often taken on the grounds of lessening the potential for future conflict. In short, actors may

seek to disarm others who they deem irresponsible or belligerent. In 1991, international forces

expelled Iraq's military from Kuwait. The resulting ceasefire agreement between the United

Nations and Iraq stipulated the dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs

and limited the mobility of its military within its own territory. Continued suspicions that Iraq

was undermining these agreements compelled other actors in the international community -- led

by the United States -- to again use military force, in an effort to see through the disarming

10

stipulations. This, however, is not the first time such actions have been taken. Rather, after every

war there is generally some type of disarmament imposed upon the loser. It is often, but not

always, the case that these arrangements are resented and create challenges on their own (e.g.,

Germany after World War I versus Germany after World War II).

Why is Disarmament Important?

It is generally difficult for actors to ensure that rivals will not attempt to gain undue influence

over them through the use of violence. Trust is often lacking in social relations, particularly

during times of uncertainty and hostilities. This often leads opponents to seek increasingly

greater capacity to inflict violence on others that can result in the stockpile of overly threatening

or pernicious weapons. This heightens mutual skepticism and significantly reduces the prospects

for resolving differences peacefully and through negotiation.

Unilateral disarmament can be used to reduce these fears and tensions and pave the way for

greater cooperation. In other words, disarming can defuse a dangerous situation because it is

generally seen as a gesture of benign intent and decreases the perceived threat that one poses to

others. Moreover, it can encourage reciprocal behavior among would-be adversaries. Bilateral or

multilateral agreements can be used to acknowledge mutually non-threatening intent and can

further cooperation that increases transparency and dialogue between potential rivals. However,

the very skepticism that characterizes adversarial relations makes initiation of such efforts

unlikely during times that they are most needed. Thus, much of the world has focused on

banning weapons deemed inhumane prior to conflict situations in order to stigmatize and curtail

their use when hostilities do erupt. While forcible disarmament is an ancient practice, it has the

potential to generate social resentment that may foster aggressive behavior in the future. Yet, this

is not always the case, as shown by the current friendly relations between the victors of World

War II and Japan and Germany.

1] For fact sheets, local reports, and handbooks on gun exchange programs, see "JoinTogether

Online" at http://www.helpnetwork.org/frames/pubs.2.html (no longer available as of March 5th

2013). Also see, the World Council of Churches' Web site at

http://www.cephasministry.com/world_wcc_disarm.html

11

Use the following to cite this article:

Smith, M. Shane. "Disarmament." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess.

Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003

<http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/disarmament>.

12