Armament and Disarmament: Navigating the Paradox of Military Strength and Global Stability

Armament

For centuries until this day, the power and status of countries depended on their possession of lethal arms and weapons. During the 19th and for a greater part of the 20th centuries, European powers competed with each other in arms race. The more arms and armed forces a country had, the more powerful it became.

Eventually, at a certain stage, the balance of power tilted towards one power, and war started in Europe. The First World and the Second World Wars were largely fought in Europe during the half of the 20^ century to dominate Europe and maintain colonies.

Nuclear Age

The nuclear age began in 1945, and the dynamics of war had changed for good.

The Second World War ended with the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945. The horror and unprecedented devastation that caused the people of the two cities shocked the whole world as to what science could do if it was used destructively.

Both the cities were turned into rubble. In Hiroshima alone, nearly 80,000 people reportedly died immediately, with another 60,000 injured. In Nagasaki, 37,500 people died immediately, with more than 50,000 injured. It is estimated that the eventual death toll was more than 700,000.

Soon, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France joined the exclusive nuclear club.

Thereafter, China exploded a nuclear device in 1974. India conducted nuclear tests in 1974, and in the late ’70s, Pakistan developed nuclear capability but did not publicly conduct nuclear tests. In May 1998, when India again exploded nuclear devices, Pakistan followed suit within three weeks of India’s action.

Technology has developed missiles, both long-range and short-range. These are the means to deliver nuclear weapons without airplanes carrying nuclear bombs. Almost all powerful states have amassed weapons of mass destruction (atomic, biological, and chemical – commonly called ABC weapons).

Arms Race

During the height of the Cold War, the arms race started between the US and the former Soviet Union. In 1990, 97 percent of nuclear weapons belonged to them. Each had more than 10,000 nuclear warheads that could be deployed with long and intermediate missiles.

They had enough nuclear power to destroy the world many times over. Some estimated that they had in possession the equivalent of more than one million bombs, the size of the nuclear bomb that wiped out the city of Hiroshima (Japan) on August 6, 1945. The bomb used in Hiroshima released energy equivalent to the explosion of more than 20,000 tonnes of TNT.

Conventional weapons include tanks, artillery, gunships, helicopters, planes, rifles, hand grenades, and landmines.

In fact, military expenditure in both developed and developing countries rose dramatically in the last decade or so. In developing countries, notably in Southeast Asia, defense forces had been restructured from counter-insurgency capabilities to modern, high-technology forces with increased emphasis on maritime capabilities.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US’s military expenditures soared to a new height, and its defense spending under the Bush administration’s plans increased from US$ 345 billion in 2002 to an average of US$ 387 billion per year from 2003 to 2007 in inflation-adjusted dollars. The US military expenditure equals the combined defense budget of the next 14 highest-spending countries.

China’s military spending has been growing for several years. In 2000, the focus of China’s military expansion was the purchase of navy vessels that would give China a deepwater fleet for the first time. China proposed to buy a Russian aircraft carrier as well as build its own carriers.

In addition, China bought a modern Russian destroyer and ordered another two. It is reported in 2001 that China reportedly spent US$ 14 billion to boost its second-strike capabilities in response to any nuclear attack. In 2001-2002, it increased its defense budget by more than 12 percent. The latest rise would make the country’s total budget US$ 17 billion.

According to a report in 2001, the following was the comparative military strength of the US and China.

	US	China
Regular army:	1,371,500	2,000,000
Reserves	1,303,300	1,200,000
Aircraft carriers	12	Nil
Other war vessels	118	270
Tanks	7,800	10,300
Combat aircraft	4,300	3,500
Submarines	75	69
Nuclear warheads	12,070	425

Through the mid and late 1980s, Asia’s share of the world military expenditure had doubled. Arms imports to Asia rose from 15.5 percent in 1982 to 34 percent in 1991. In 1991, three countries in the Asia-Pacific region – South Korea, China, and Thailand – ranked in the top ten arms importers, followed by Taiwan and Myanmar.

Since 1990, the world has become much more fissiparous politically, and bipolarity in military relations that dominated during the Cold War disappeared with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Second Gulf War of 2003 on Iraq has resulted in instability in the world security environment than before.

Countries appear to be concerned with their national security and wish to acquire more arms in such a political and security environment.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, in an address to Cairo’s Al-Azhar University in early February 2003, pointed out that:

“What is important is to deter and defeat our enemies. And to do this today, we need guns and rockets, warships and warplanes, armored cars, etc. We cannot depend on others to supply us with these things forever, least of all by those who are opposed to us. We need to invent, design, produce, and test our own weapons of defense.”

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia

Global expenditure of conventional arms

Many countries spend billions of dollars on conventional weapons. In the Indian subcontinent, India and Pakistan regularly increase their defense budgets.

According to a report from the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1995, “World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers – 1993-1994,” the following expenditures on arms imports during 1991-1993 were categorized by region:

Middle East-	$31,690 billion	(40%) of total world expenditure
Western Europe-	$12,940 billion	(17%)
East Asia-	$10,635 billion	(14%)
North America-	$5,840 billion	(8%)
South Asia-	$4,515 billion	(6%)
Africa-	$2,015 billion	(3%)
South America-	$1,400 billion	(2%)
Eastern Europe-	$1,300 billion	(2%)
All others-	$6,215 billion	(8%)
WORLD-	$ 76,550 billion	(100%)

The above expenditures need to be put in perspective against other world needs, for example, only $6 billion dollars are reportedly required to educate every child.

With such staggering expenditures spent on conventional weapons, it is unsurprising that economic growth and essential social services are neglected in many developing countries.

Although the UN declared complete disarmament as the ideal goal, many of the member-states seem to go in the opposite direction.

Arams Trade

Countries that sell arms and countries that buy them are both responsible for creating a dangerous world by increasing the risk of armed confrontation.

Since the late ’90s, the US accounts for more than two-fifths of the world’s arms trade, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction has continued unabated. Arms sales not only make money but also indirectly control the defense planning of other states.

According to “World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (1993-94)” by the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington DC, the following table indicates the countries and their percentage share of arms trade in the world:

The US, Britain, China, France, and Russia are the major countries in arms trade. Besides Israel, North Korea, South Africa, the Czech Republic, and Brazil sell arms to other countries.

	US	Russia	Germany/ France/ Britain	Others in Europe	China	Others
1989	27%	39%	17%	17%	5%	5%
1990	30%	34%	25%	5%	3%	3%
1991	36%	22%	29%	5%	5%	3%
1992	42%	10%	29%	9%	4%	6%
1993	47%	12%	28%	6%	4%	3%

The US also transfers a considerable number of weapons to other countries, numbering about 60, as “giveaways” or sells them cheaply to its allies. The US transferred over US$ 7 billion worth of weapons since 1990. These include jet fighters, tanks, and ships.

Israel received most of the weapons. It is reported that Russia sold weapons amounting to US$ 4.5 billion during 2002, an increase of more than US$ 1.7 billion compared to 2001.

A UN Register for Conventional Weapons opened in 1992. The goal behind the register is openness in arms sales. Participation is voluntary and has proved to be not so effective.

Nonetheless, about 70 or more countries are believed to be unilaterally taking part to disclose arms sales as they wish. The Register appears to be an important accomplishment because at least it attempts to make arms sales transparent.

Arms control

As noted earlier, arms control means limitations or caps on weapons levels. It involves an agreement among states to place a ceiling on the number or type of weapons.

The purpose of arms control is not only to limit the acquisition of armaments but also to divert expenditure on weapons to social sectors. There has been some progress in limiting nuclear weapons and missiles between the US and Russia through various treaties.

The enforcement of the international regime on arms control is weak because there are very few centralized international institutions to control the arms race. In this situation, states are free to acquire unlimited arms. Such accumulation may lead to competition in an arms race among global or regional powers in the world.

At the 13th Non-Aligned Summit in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) on 24-25 February 2003, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad suggested that a cap on arms spending of a country needed to be imposed by the UN to limit the acquisition of arms and weapons by countries.

Reduction of conventional weapons in Europe

In Europe, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty of 1990 (CFE) greatly reduced the number of tanks, combat helicopters, and artillery, leaving Western countries and Russia with an equal number of conventional weapons.

Following the CFE, the Troops Level Agreement of 1992 limited the US and Russian troops to 195,000 on either side in Central Europe. Further reductions of troops are being considered between the two sides.

Disarmament

Disarmament means the elimination of armaments, whereas arms control means regulation of armaments, not abolition. Disarmament can be regional or global. With the threatening prospect during the Cold War, the international community felt insecure and moved disarmament resolutions in the UN General Assembly.

The purpose of disarmament was mainly to achieve two goals: security and cutting the costs of military expenditure that could be diverted to social services.

Disarmament and the UN

The General Assembly of the UN adopted many resolutions regarding disarmament. One of the first resolutions was Resolution 1378 of 20 November 1959. It was followed by the UN Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament in 1978.

The Second UN Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament was held in 1982 and the Third Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament in 1988. Furthermore, in 1962, the UN Disarmament Committee was entrusted to make every effort for complete disarmament under effective international control.

All the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on Disarmament have a common theme. They called upon all member-states to make every effort to achieve a constructive solution to the arms race and expressed the hope that measures leading towards the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control would be in place in the shortest possible time.

They recommended cutbacks in military budgets and to provide funds for economic development. The UN laid out a road map of disarmament for both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Reduction of nuclear weapons.

Late Lord Louis Mountbatten (former Governor-General of India) once said that “nuclear arms have no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils.” Similar sentiments were expressed in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

Consistent with the resolutions and declarations of the UN, there were two important treaties with regard to nuclear arms. The first one was the 1968 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) and the other was the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The former urged the nations to commit not to produce nuclear weapons while the latter prohibited any testing of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have not become parties to NPT and thus were able to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998.

In response to its uneasy relationship with the US, in early 2003, North Korea is the only country that withdrew from the NPT in early 2003 and expelled the inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

Nuclear arms deals between the US and the USSR/Russia.

The US and the former Soviet Union signed many treaties to reduce nuclear weapons. US President and the Soviet Union’s General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev reached the first arms pact (Strategic Arms Limitations Agreement – SALT I) in 1972 when they simply agreed not to increase their stocks of weapons further.

The first treaty (SALT II) to envisage a reduction in arsenals followed in 1979 between President Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev, but the number of weapons did not begin to come down until the 1980s.

In 1987, the Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, signed by President Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, planned to dismantle all medium and short-range nuclear weapons and agreed to establish a system for inspection and verification.

In 1991, the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) agreed by President George Bush Sr. and President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to cut the number of long-range nuclear warheads by roughly half to 6,000 for each side. The targets of the 1991 START I were only reached in December 2001.

The breakup of the Soviet Union left nuclear weapons in the hands of four new Republics (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), all of which later said that earlier treaties would bind them.

Belarus and Kazakhstan transferred their nuclear warheads to Russia and destroyed the accompanying delivery vehicles, while Ukraine moved its warheads to Russia and has continued to eliminate the associated missile silos and heavy bombers.

In 1993, the second START II, signed by President George Bush Sr. and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, supported further cuts to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads.

In 2002, President George Bush Jr. and President Vladimir Putin signed the Moscow Treaty, paving the way to slash their strategic nuclear warheads by two-thirds over the next 10 years. The stockpiles of these nuclear warheads were to be reduced to between 1,700-2,200 from approximately 6,000 as of 2002.

It is noted that each side possessed more than 10,000 nuclear warheads. In that context, the agreement of 2002 has been, no doubt, a great achievement in the reduction of nuclear warheads.

While the START treaties included measures to destroy the methods of delivering nuclear weapons, such as bombers, submarines, and launchers, the US did not want these addressed in the Moscow Treaty.

For instance, the US could reduce its strategic arsenal to one launcher with one warhead while putting nine other warheads into storage.

That would then count as one weapon, although in theory, the other nine warheads could be brought out of reserve and added to the launcher, which has been kept in functioning order.

Critics of the Moscow Treaty believe that both countries should push for greater control and reduction of tactical nuclear weapons as distinct from strategic nuclear warheads.

Tactical weapons are generally compact enough to be carried by one or two people and are attractive to terrorists. They are easy to steal, but so far, no weapon is publicly known to have been stolen.

Paul Keating, former Prime Minister of Australia (1991-96), in his book held the view that nuclear weapons should be scrapped.

He wrote:

Three possibilities exist with regard to nuclear weapons and three only. First, that they will be used, either deliberately or accidentally.

Second, that they will not be used but will be managed forever by wise, prudent, and well-meaning governments and military forces and will never fall into the hands of terrorists.

Or third, that we agree to get rid of them. The first possibility offers catastrophe to the human race. The second requires us to make assumptions about the future that run completely counter to logic and experience. The third is the only possibility that can secure our safety.

Paul Keating, former Prime Minister of Australia

Some of the notable disarmament treaties on nuclear weapons are as follows:

• Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and under Water, 1963
• Outer Space Treaty, 1967
• Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968
• Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile, 1972
• US-Soviet Treaty on Arms Limitation, 1972
• US-Soviet Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosion for Peaceful Purposes, 1976
• Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 1979
• Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT), 1979

Chemical and biological weapons

Chemical and biological weapons are easy to produce, which is why they are commonly referred to as the “Poor man’s Atom Bomb.”

Any individual with a science degree may produce such weapons. To support this contention, it was reported that the US army found evidence in caves in Afghanistan of the preparation of such weapons by the Al-Qaeda militants of Osama Bin Laden.

Chemical weapons

Chemical weapons are, in fact, man-made poisons. They may be made in pharmaceutical laboratories. Many substances that have industrial uses, such as metal cleaning or photo-developing materials, can be turned into dangerous weapons.

Unlike biological agents, which are living organisms, chemical weapons, such as the nerve gases sarin and VX, are relatively easy to acquire and stockpile. The 1995 Sarin attack on a Tokyo subway by the followers of Doomsday Cult leader Shoko Ashara (real name Chizuo Matsumato) injured 3,800 and killed 12.

In 1899, the Hague Declaration prohibited “asphyxiating or deleterious gases.” However, more than 125,000 tonnes of gas were used in the First World War (1914-1918). The Russians experimented with poisonous gas in 1915, but the real emergence of gas as a weapon in the First World War was at the hands of the Germans at Ypres 12 months later. Chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas were all subsequently used by both the German and British armies. Gas became part of the soldier’s way of life.

By the 1970s, it was reported that the Soviet Union employed 60,000 people in producing chemical weapons. So also was the US.

The US used chemical weapons (Agent Orange) during the Vietnam War in the 60s and 70s and in Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and against the Kurds in northern Iraq in the 80s. 20-25 countries, including Israel, India, and Pakistan, are believed to be in possession of such weapons.

However, only three countries—US, Russia, and Iraq—have admitted possession of chemical weapons. It is reported that the largest arsenal of chemical weapons is in the hands of Russia (about 40,000 tonnes) and the US (about 30,000 tonnes). Iraq’s chemical weapons were believed to have been destroyed by the UN inspectors by 1998.

In 1993, the Chemical Weapons Convention was concluded in Paris. It prohibits the manufacture of chemical weapons except for medical and research purposes.

164 countries signed it. As of 1996, 75 countries, including the US, have ratified it. The Convention established a monitoring inspection unit with the authority to conduct short-notice inspections and to ensure that parties respect the provisions of the Convention.

Types of Biological Weapons

Biological weapons are highly contagious viral or bacterial agents that may be inflicted upon an innocent mass population. The history of such weapons goes back at least a few centuries.

In the 16th century, Spanish commanders introduced smallpox to the New World, and it had a devastating effect on the local population.

Historians say millions perished in what the Aztecs called “the Great Dying.” Captain Simeon Ecuyer of the Royal American Regiment made a note in his diary: “Out of our regard for them (the Indians), we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.”

The blankets performed as intended. The late Professor Noel Butlin, in his 1983 book “Our Original Aggression,” argued that the source of the outbreak of smallpox that caused deaths in the Aboriginal population in Australia in the late 18th century was smallpox scabs carried on board the First Fleet to Australia from Britain.

The smallpox virus is likely to spread quickly in the Western world because people are not vaccinated against it. Routine vaccinations stopped in 1972 because smallpox was eradicated. In 2002, the US administration decided to inoculate 288 million Americans against smallpox.

It is believed that the smallpox virus exists for research purposes in secure locations in the US and Russia. There are media reports that hidden stockpiles may be found in Iraq and North Korea.

As the Rajneeshee cult demonstrated in 1984, it was not difficult to set off a wave of food poisonings among people through sprinkling salmonella bacteria. The Russians had experienced the strategic potential of biological warfare in an accident in Sverdlovsk in 1979.

It was reported that cleaners forgot to put air filters on a laboratory that produced anthrax. It contaminated the city, and as a result, thousands died. In the US in late September 2001, the mail-borne anthrax attacks killed five people and terrorized the whole nation.

Among the bacterial agents, anthrax is dangerous to human beings as it is resistant to light and heat and can remain active in soil and water for years. If anthrax spores are inhaled, death results almost 90 percent of the time. In the 1960s, the US conducted tests in the South Pacific with the spray of a single line of anthrax from a plane over large enclosures of rhesus monkeys.

Half of them died. There are reports of a combined smallpox and Ebola virus, marrying the hemorrhaging lethality of the Ebola virus with the easy infection of smallpox.

The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of germ warfare, but the regime under the Protocol is weak. In 1972, another legal regime under the Biological Weapons Convention was established.

The 1972 Convention prohibits the production and use of germ warfare, while the 1925 Agreement forbade only the use of germ warfare (not production). Forty-seven countries, including the US, Russia, and Britain, signed the convention.

The Convention has a weak verifiable regime and does not prevent those parties who wish to produce weapons or catch those who are already producing it. Although no major use of germ warfare has taken place, the regime needs strengthening by making use of short-notice inspections.

It is widely believed that enough suspicions and alleged activities have taken place to require inspections in a few countries to ensure that member countries comply with the 1972 Convention. The Enforcement Protocols under the Biological Weapons Convention could not be adopted because of the opposition of the US.

Both Russia and the US are believed to have biological weapons. It is reported that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, Taiwan, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Sudan may have biological weapons.

Difference between Biological and Chemical Weapons

While a big stockpile of chemical weapons is required to kill large numbers of people, only a small quantity of biological weapons (germ warfare) is needed to kill tens of thousands of people. The other distinguishing feature is that there is no mistaking a chemical attack when it occurs because its victims die almost immediately.

But a biological attack may not take effect for several days, making it difficult to mount an emergency response and cope with mass hysteria among those who fear contamination.

Furthermore, biological weapons are easy to carry and, as such are singularly well-designed for use by terrorists.

It was thought that antibiotics and modern drugs banished the specter of the plague. But now the world is confronted with new “plagues” invented by human beings.

Disarmament and Non-governmental Organizations

The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in disarmament has been remarkable. The former High Commissioner for Refugees described them as “an important democratising factor in the UN international spectrum.”

The NGOs see the arms race not only as a waste of money but also as an expression of arrogance and power to dominate the world through “hard power.” They also recognize the dangers of arms accumulation on humanity.

NGOs have also directed campaigns against countries that sell arms. The notable countries that sell arms are the US, Russia, Britain, France, Germany, and China.

The most widely respected organization is the Stockholm-based International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI dedicates its activities to world peace and publishes its highly respected Yearly Book of World Disarmament. Another NGO is Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is totally opposed to nuclear testing and tried in the recent past to disrupt French nuclear testing in the Pacific Ocean. Two respectable professional bodies received the Nobel Peace Prizes. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which comprised US and Russian physicians, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.

Again in 1995, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, whose members are mainly renowned nuclear physicists, for their efforts in eliminating the world’s nuclear weapons.

In the US, about 30 NGOs are reportedly working as lobbyists against arms sales. In Canada, a delegation of activists led by Parliamentarian Libby Davies launched a new drive toward disarmament in 1998 by trying to inspect a Trident submarine construction facility in Groton, Connecticut, US. They were refused permission to enter the plant and settled for an aerial inspection by helicopter.

The Groton production facility is reported to be producing the world’s largest delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.

Each Trident missile-carrying submarine can carry 96 nuclear warheads. Women, particularly in Western countries, have been at the forefront of the disarmament movement. The US Organization of Peace Links and the Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament are notable ones.

All these organizations work hard to push governments toward disarmament through pressure with elected representatives.

Some use moral appeal, and others use peace protests and civil disobedience. In this way, public opinion against the arms race is formulated, and a call for diverting money for poverty alleviation is made.

Regional nuclear-free zone under the 1967 Treaty of Tlateloco & the 1986 Treaty of Rarotonga (Latin America and South Pacific area).

The 1967 Treaty of Tlateloco is confined to Latin American countries. It prohibits the possession of nuclear weapons in Latin America. Its essential aim is to create a nuclear-free zone in Latin America. The Treaty followed a General Assembly idea of creating a nuclear-free zone in Latin America in.

The 1986 Treaty of Rarotonga establishes a nuclear-free zone in a huge area of the South Pacific.

The Treaty contains provisions that impact the export of nuclear materials to non-nuclear states. Fiji, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea are members of the Treaty.

However, the question remains whether such Treaties are binding on nuclear weapon states, such as the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China. Treaties cannot impose obligations on third states without their consent (Article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

Therefore, non-parties to the above-mentioned treaties, in particular nuclear weapon states, are not legally bound to comply with the regime contemplated by these Nuclear Free Zone Treaties.

Legality of Nuclear Weapons and the International Court of Justice

A question arose as to whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was legally permissible under the UN Charter because they cause mass destruction.

In November 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN General Assembly sought an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice. This case created considerable interest among nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapons states.

The arguments were canvassed that nuclear weapons were illegal because customary law of prohibition had emerged from the Declarations and Resolutions of the UN General Assembly. It was argued that the consensus of international opinion was to eliminate nuclear weapons after they were used in Japan in 1945.

The Court first rejected the World Health Organization’s eligibility to seek an opinion from the Court on the grounds that the WHO, being an organization with global health issues, did not have the requisite standing to seek an opinion on a non-health-related issue.

With regard to the request of the UN General Assembly, the Court was equally divided on its opinion, and with the casting vote of the President of the Court, Justice Mohammad Bedaoui (Algerian), the Court held that it was unable to decide whether a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense where the existence of a state was threatened.

The Court further held that there was no existence of either customary or conventional international law for the prohibition or use of nuclear weapons.

The Advisory Opinion was a victory for nuclear weapons states and a severe disappointment for pacifists. However, the Court held that there existed an obligation to negotiate in good faith to eliminate nuclear weapons. This implies that “the ball” is in the court of the five major nuclear weapons states.

Prospects of Arms Race and Disarmament

At present, there are eight countries that have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, namely Britain, France, China, Russia, the US, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Political observers believe that the possession of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by Israel has led to an arms race in the Middle East.

In order to maintain a balance of power in the region, a few countries in the region might have started their weapons programs, and as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exists in the Middle East, an arms race is not likely to go away in the volatile region.

In 1969, Israel reportedly agreed with the US not to publicly declare its nuclear weapons programs or to test its nuclear weapons.

In return, Washington reportedly pledged not to pressure Israel to ratify the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Military experts believe that Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads and possesses the means to use them in an attack.

The policy of the Bush administration from 2001 in developing a missile defense shield to knock off missiles carrying warheads in the sky to the US mainland may give rise to a global arms race.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, the US has been determined to spend billions of dollars on a threat reduction program and on “state-of-the-art” new weapons to maintain its supremacy in the world.

Analysts believe that the US plans may cause an arms race in other regions. Russia and China may not sit idly as spectators to the new weapons build-up of the US.

The September 11 attacks have been a setback for disarmament. Total disarmament in the world remains a dream. Although long-range nuclear weapons may decline, there is an attempt to produce smaller nuclear smart bombs in the US with less fallout designed to penetrate underground bunkers.

It appears that as long as war is a possibility, total disarmament seems to be an unachievable goal. It is relevant to quote Hans Morgenthau “Men do not fight because they have arms.

They have arms because they deem it necessary to fight.”