All you need about Arms Control and Disarmament for a 15-20 minute Presentation

2. What 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?

3. Any 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’

4. Participants 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

5. In its general conception, arms control is any type of
restraint on the use of arms, any form of military
cooperation between adversaries. Arms control can be
implicit or explicit, formal or informal, and unilateral,
bilateral, or multilateral. It is a process of jointly
managing 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
security
policies of the signatories.

6. Disarmament rests on a fundamentally different
philosophical premise than arms control. It envisions
the
drastic reduction or elimination of all weapons, looking
toward the eradication of war itself. Disarmament is
based
on the notion that if there were no more weapons there
would be no more war. This is a compelling proposition,
with enough truth to give it a very long life in the
history
to popular impression, it is not necessarily abut reducing
arms levels.

7. 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.

8. 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

9. Agreement
Signed by
Provision
Year
Strategic Arms Limitation Treat
(SALT 1)
2
Provides for freeze on aggregate number of fixed, Land-based
ICBMs and SLBMs
1972
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

10. Environmental 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, 1972
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 1996
Open Skies Treaty, 2002
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty ( SORT), 2003
START Three (2010)

11. 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 war
The objective was also to reduce the cost of war, and reduce the

12. 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 security
States have a common interest in avoiding nuclear
war
Arms control and military strategy should work
together to promote national security (deployment
of weapons or an adverse tactical maneuver).

13. 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?

14. Institutional mechanisms involving a certain
understanding regarding force
buildup, strategic deployment, etc.
Improve strategic signaling
Build channels of communication
Increase exchange of information

15. Alliance or agreements - INCSEA, SALT or Indus Water Treaty
Potential 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.

16. There is a need for institutionalizing arms control
arrangement because:
Nuclear weapons
Conventional buildup
Existing disputes
Endemic mistrust – a generational change that would
undermine peace
Countries pursing independent trajectories of sociopolitical and military development

17. Technological expansion.
Asymmetrical balance.
No Arms Control arrangement.
Confidence Building Measures(CBMs)
only.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. With 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.

23. Thus 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.