Peace is regarded as one of the most common objectives set by the international community, yet the military continues to dominate relations among states as they build up their armies, advance military technology, and prepare themselves for possible future conflicts. Weapons built to provide security to the country may also result in destruction at the international level. This contradiction highlights the major dilemma: Why has disarmament been difficult for states if they have recognized the threats and experienced the consequences of war?
World Disarmament Week, observed every year from 24 to 30 October, was first celebrated in 1978 through a United Nations resolution S-10/2. It provides us with an opportunity to seek an answer to this question. This week is observed to raise awareness about the importance of disarmament and its significance in international security. It further emphasizes that states need to reduce their dependence on military might and instead design a framework to make this world a secure place.
From Delusion to Reality: Peace and Arms Race in Today’s World
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during the Second World War revealed the destructive potential of war, especially in the contemporary, technologically advanced age. These events heightened international concerns regarding modern warfare and prompted the international community to ensure tighter control of destructive weapons in an attempt to prevent any future world war. Over time, this idea gained states’ approval. They began designing the rules regarding the making, possessing, and testing of certain categories of weapons.
The problem has become evident in the contemporary age. As stated by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2026, the global possession of nuclear warheads is reported to be 12,187, including those that need to be dismantled, with Russia and the United States contributing the highest number. Moreover, the states continue to modernize their weapons. These developments indicate that military power remains central to the states, and this serves as a prediction of a devastating war if the conflicts escalate.
Dilemma as a Hurdle to Disarmament
The security dilemma serves as the main obstacle to disarmament. In the international arena, there is no central government like the national government at the domestic level. Thus, governments have to make decisions to ensure their survival. This leads both states to upgrade their military equipment that might create an impression of an arms race even when the state has no intention to do so.
Moreover, if the states’ interests converge, they may become entangled in a long rivalry, which may force them to build new weapons to protect themselves. The United States of America and Russia, the former Soviet Union, were engaged in intense rivalry with the aim of becoming a global superpower. The United States tested its nuclear weapons in 1945; it encouraged the Soviet Union to develop nuclear weapons. Three years later, in 1949, the Soviet Union also became a nuclear power. When the U.S. developed a hydrogen bomb in 1952, the Soviet Union followed suit and developed a hydrogen bomb in 1953. This example illustrates that each state developed advanced technology to protect itself, but it also instilled fear in the enemy and forced it to upgrade its equipment to ensure its security.
When states feel endangered, they tend to think and make decisions from a security perspective. The problem remains, as the states are hesitant to trust their rival. This makes it less likely for a state to disarm if it suspects that the other party is not complying with the disarmament agreement. Even during times of low military tensions, no state would be willing to disarm without reliable guarantees.
Nuclear deterrence provides another dimension to this issue. The concept revolves around the belief that the threat of attack is reduced when the state possesses a destructive nuclear capability. Supporters of this school of thought believe that the cost of war makes it difficult for adversaries to initiate the war. However, this situation depends on the ability of policymakers to interpret the threat and initiate communication with the relevant authorities so that they can avoid a decision that would carry irreplaceable consequences. Nuclear weapons were initially designed to prevent war but do not eliminate conflict, and if used in a war, they will have consequences beyond the borders.
International Progress
Over time, the international community has designed several important treaties to regulate the use of weapons. These treaties achieved some success while failing in certain aspects.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force in 1970 and was signed by 191 states, including five nuclear-armed states. However, Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed or joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The primary purpose of the treaty was to prevent the creation and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Article I of the convention prohibits nuclear-armed states from giving any material to non-nuclear states that could be used in the proliferation of weapons.
Moreover, it emphasizes the peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, non-nuclear weapon states have frequently expressed doubts about the implementation of their obligations by the nuclear-armed states in meeting disarmament. The treaty is criticized for its unequal implementation of objectives. This concern is reinforced by the fact that Ukraine, in an attempt to disarm to fulfill obligations, gave up on its inherited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union because it received security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. However, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and full-scale invasion of 2022 undermined confidence in those guarantees. Since 2022, Ukraine has been entangled in war with no end to be seen. This experience itself explains why many states hesitate to disarm.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is another attempt by the international community to tighten and reinforce norms regarding the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It came into force in 2021. Under this treaty, the states are restricted from developing, possessing, or using nuclear weapons. The treaty is an important development, but its effect remains limited, as it is not approved by any nuclear-armed country. This raises another wider task: an agreement can set the rules and norms but cannot compel governments to implement it.
From another perspective, international agreements have made considerable progress. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which came into force in 1997, with 193 members in total (as of now), restricts the development, acquisition, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Moreover, this convention introduced a challenge inspection mechanism, where all members would have committed to the inspection of weapons at any time and anywhere. Another convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, restricted the development and proliferation of toxic biological agents, although it lacks a comprehensive verification framework. Conventions are stronger when they are supported by a proper verification mechanism.
The core problem here is not the absence of rules and regulations but the lack of an enforcement mechanism. International organizations possess the ability to make laws but fail to implement them, as the primary responsibility for implementation lies with the states. Moreover, if a mechanism lacks a verification process, mistrust persists among rival states, or major powers refuse to cooperate; disarmament agreements are bound to fail.
The Costs of Militarization
The cost of militarization is particularly high for developing countries. Due to limited resources, multiple sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure compete for resources. In such countries, like any other, when a conflict arises, they view the issue through a security lens. This compels the government to spend more on the military and defense, due to which other sectors are subsequently ignored. This argument in no way undermines the importance of security, but the defense budget poses substantial costs on already vulnerable populations. The World Bank reports that the poverty rate in Pakistan has increased from 22% in 2018 to 29% in 2025, leaving 70 million individuals in poverty. Such a country spent nearly 1.2 billion on Independence Day and the Marka-e-Haq celebrations combined.
Further, if the conflicts escalate, armed conflict destroys both civilian and military infrastructure. The war has destructive results for people from all walks of life. Civilians often pay the highest price, as they are forcibly displaced, suffer from poverty and hunger, and face long-term psychological trauma and injuries that continue to affect them long after the war ends.
Disarmament therefore does contribute to human security by reducing the chances of violent conflict and providing a framework for negotiation. However, disarmament cannot be the only factor to drive motivation, as it depends significantly on government priorities and state policies.
Advanced Technology and Disarmament
The disarmament agreements need to take into consideration the changing nature of warfare. Unlike the World War era, states are now equipped with armed drones, autonomous weapons, and artificial intelligence. Moreover, they are increasingly securitizing space as well. The Washington Post reported that U.S. Air Force security secretary Troy Meink acknowledged that the U.S. had deployed weapons in Earth’s orbit.
These developments present a set of new challenges to the international security regime. These automated technologies have more or less the same authority as an officer, as the slightest mistake, miscommunication, or technical issue could cause tensions to escalate before policymakers assess the situation. Moreover, the international disarmament treaties are not concluding at the same pace as these military technologies are evolving. This rapid development of technology may force states to agree to limitations as they fear rival states may take technological advantage. Hence, the main objective of any treaty should be to ensure transparency instead of restricting the development of new technologies.
Conclusion
World Disarmament Week urges the states to move beyond the declarations and address the harsh reality of the technological advancements being misused to pursue the political agenda. The international community foremost needs to strengthen the transparency and implementation mechanisms. The most important responsibility rests on the shoulders of states, as they are required to pool their efforts to make these agreements meaningful. The expiration of the New START agreement between the two nations in February 2026 has increased the uncertainty about the future arms race. On the other hand, disarmament agreements do not intend for states to ignore their security concerns but to balance them in a way that prevents states from being trapped in a competition.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
Find our FREE quizzes and MCQs here!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
