Weapons and warfare have long decided the course of human events.

They have decided

the rise and fall of empires, the emergence of the law enforcement in the justice system
and the nature of conflict resolution policies. The rise of complex social and political
group has always been shadowed by the rise of armed states. State politics and warfare
has always gone hand in hand, with national armament playing the role of guardian or
raider; as required by the situations. By armament one means the actual tools of killing
people, no matter what scale they operate on. Nations undertake the accumulation of
weapons for a myriad of reasons including political, social, psychological, technological
and military. And while such complex brew of reasons might encourage them to
stockpile arms, these nations also hesitate to undertake armament on too large a scale
because the level of sophistication of current weapons can lead to epic disasters if
misused. And because of the threat of mass destruction, the world realizes the need for
the disarmament movement.

The first tools that man created were the simple tool of hunting. And it wasnt long
before these humble tools morphed into weapons. One of simplest weapon, a spear, is
known to have existed about 400,000 years ago (Ancient Military History, 2014). But the
cave paintings of that time only depict scenes of hunting and not warfare. But even so,
it is inconceivable that any tribe of early man would not have tried its best to increase
the quantity and quality of these weapons, for these weapons were the reason behind
their survival. This survival value of weapons still holds true and has given a unique
shape to our history. The origin of armament may as well be the origin of human
civilization. The greatest accomplishment of humans towards civilization has been the
devilment political and justice system (Fuller, 19). This was the first thing that moved us

from savagery to civilization. And the sole reason that this was possible was because of
the existence of weapons as enforcers of the law. As Machiavelli states There can be
no good laws where there are no good arms( Fuller, 19). In other words, weapons
were the first proponents of political power. And it can argued that it was through
power of weapons, and not through agriculture, that man stepped into a civilized, law
abiding world (Fuller, 19).

The early accumulation of weapons was more of a response to the hunting requirements
than it was about warfare. In fact, its only in time period of 20,000 12,000 years ago
that the first evidence of organized violence can be found, even though we have
weapons like spears and bow and arrow were development thousands of years before this
period (Fuller, 20). Initial warfare must have been function of a bigger population
fighting over a small ecological niche. The invention of agriculture and the domestication
animals led to the formation of more diverse and complex societies. While this newly
developed social structure provided the required stability to the human condition, it also
set the stage for the emergence of warfare and the development of weapons. As the
small groups of human stated gathering in strength and stated forming more formal and
legitimate societies, the concept of warfare and weapons took upon a new meaning
(Fuller, 20). Instead of merely being an agent for hunting, raiding of warding of
predatory behavior of other humans or animals, warfare became a function of gathering
economic and political power. And with each technological achievement in the field of
weaponry, warfare took on a larger role in the social, political, economic, psychological,
and ,of course, military aspects of our social existence (Fuller, 19).

It is easy to see the appeal of armament when every country around you is developing

tools that can potentially undermine your power and stability. The mere psychological
and social pressure would be enough to run head first into an arms race. The continuing
conflicts between emerging economies made the role of armament quite obvious. The
need for armament cannot be overstated, especially when the shadow of war hangs over
the world, as was the case in the middle ages (Malnes, 60). The Hobbesian theory of
international conflict explains the need of nations to develop dominant military and
weaponry by taking into account that the 'states are often in conflict for high stakes'
(Malnes, 62). And it is nearly impossible to discern the motivations, morality and
altruism of other states in light of the potential gains to be had from conquest. Such
uncertainty leads to fear of war. And this fear forces the nations to step up their
arsenals to counter any aggression. Even among the most peaceful of nations, weapons
played the role of deterrents. Historically, weapons accumulation follows a threat-response
pattern (Malnes, 62). Each time ones adversary acquires a new weapon, a state will try
its best to either develop a superior weapon or at least nullify the weapons threat by
acquiring one of similar power. By considering this scenario it is not difficult to see
why the so called agents of destruction have undergone such remarkable development
and transformation since the ancient times, as the threat-response pattern virtually ensures
an escalation of armament.

International conflict can explain why nations feel the need to stock up on the very
things that have the potential to destroy us. These nations are working on the theory of
deterrence These weaponized states have the potential to create a sort of mutual
deterrence; in other words, a balance of power (Malnes, 62). This balance exists if
either party, in a political conflict, thinks that military action would cost more than the
anticipated rewards (Malnes, 63).. And if both parties make rational decisions, neither

one would take up arms. Such a balance, therefore, goes a great deal towards resolving
conflict. But this kind of balance only exists among states that may be considered
equals, in military sense at least (Malnes, 63).

Power in the 18th century was mostly a matter of territory and the number of men with
muskets (Gulick, 24). But the current state of warfare is more of a technological feat
rather than being dependent upon number of men (Gulick, 24).. Furthermore, the rapid
advances in technology have ensured that no government can stake its power on the
assumption that it has sufficient weaponry to counter any offensive. This makes the
balance of power even more precarious that it was in the middle ages, even though the
number of wars has declined significantly and we no longer live under its shadow
(Thayer, 18). The Cold War between USA and USSR is one of the best examples one
can provide to understand the arms race in the twentieth century. Countless billions of
dollars were spend in stockpiling advanced weapons in addition to the development of
better nuclear weapons (UN, 20014). The most interesting fact of contemporary armament
is the fact that it takes place on a qualitative rather than a quantitative dimension (UN,
2014). The development of nuclear weapons is the best example of this qualitative
dimension. And while the current large level production of weapons may have added an
economics element armament, the main reason behind the development weapons,
including nuclear ones, is still the same as it was in ancient times: deterrence.

In terms of deterrence, no weapon has the power to instill greater awe than does the
nuclear weapons. The use of atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cemented its
value as an international currency for power. And as it is, the threat of nuclear
retaliation cannot be mitigated by any political or technological changes. From a military

standpoint, defending a state against nuclear attack is at best a remote possibility. Among
nations which have nuclear capabilities, the threat of mutual destruction is a valid
concern. Though it is unlikely that any state would encourage such state of being, one
must not underestimate the possibility of chance in conflict (Malnes, 62). It is the
potential loss of control that drives the deterrence factor. The case in point could be the
Cold War between USA and the USSR. It can be argued that the accumulation of
nuclear weapons was one of the key reasons that the political conflict did not escalate
into all war. So, it can be observed that the balance of power created by nuclear
armament created the possibility of peace.

After the events of World War 2, the proponents of arms control must have realized
that armament as a whole would remain an integral part of the modern world. But while
it may be unrealistic and un-pragmatic to seek complete abandonment of weapons, arms
control had to play an important in the armament process (Lineberry, 12). The aim of
arms control should be to create a stable balance of power by controlling the likelihood
of specific conflicts that lead to war. So, arms control must be an emphasis on stability
rather than the elimination of weapons (Lineberry, 12). But at the same time, the winds
have shifted in contemporary times on how we view the potential effects of armament.
The rapidly increasing technological skill level involved in weapons process has increased
the strength level of weapons to frightening levels. Added to this is the fact that the
level of sophistication, precision and technological advances in the field of nuclear
weaponry may give the world leader a false illusion that they may actually win nuclear
war instead of using nuclear weapons as deterrence (SIPRI, 18). In such a scenario,
mutually assured destruction will not factor into military considerations (Bennett, 52). The
temptation to strike first and destroy ones enemy will increase with the increase in

military technology (SIPRI, 18). The risk of accidental start of nuclear war because of a
bad decision, miscalculation, fanaticism, or sheer madness would increase exponentially.
Such will be the result of the momentum of technological advancement in nuclear
weapons (Speed, 2014).

So, while the world recognizes the role of armament as the guardian of freedom,
independence and sovereignty of a nation, it also recognizes the potential threat of
uncontrolled production and development of advanced weapons. But the modern arms
race is highly versatile and complex organism. The mass production and trade of
weapons has made armament more than a mean of providing security to a nation. It has
become a lucrative business. A large part of the world labor is placed in military related
projects, whether it be weapon development or the army. Additionally, such high
expenditure on arms puts a high level of stress on the resources of a country. It limits
the amount available for social and economic development projects. Moreover, according
to UNESCO, the high expenditures on weapon purchase and development has caused
numerous economic and political instabilities in many countries (Speed, 2014).

In the past it has been believed that by developing weapons of mass destruction the
world could be made a more peaceful place by scaring the people into peace. But the
nuclear era has made it clear that such is not the case. Hence, the world has realized
the need for disarmament, or at least the reduction of potential weapons of disaster,
namely the nuclear ones. For this purpose projects like Non- Proliferation Treaty,
Chemical Weapons Convention, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, have come into force (UN,
2014). The aim of these projects is to maintain the required levels of deterrence without
plunging into another arms race. This would ensure that ones political and military

boundaries remain secure without having to divert too many economic and social
resources toward armament (UN, 2014 ). But it needs to be understood that armament
alone is not the cause of war. They are merely tools employed by the states to further
their agendas. It is always the human choices that need and desire war. History has
shown us that while arms race may precede a war, it is always political rivalries and
the need to change political status quo that creates the atmosphere of war. No matter
the level of armament, conflict always comes down to humans need of power. No
manner of nuclear disarmament would decrease the possibility of war (Njolstad, 2014); it
would only decrease the possibility of total annihilation of the human race.

By studying the historical and contemporary advances made in armament, one can
observe that it is not only the need of security that drives states to equip themselves
with superior weapons but also the desire of superiority and power (Security Dialogue,
1973). The twentieth century has been dubbed the age of weapons and for good reasons
(Thayer, 18). We have amassed the largest collection of lethal weapons which, with only
a press of a red button, can send the human civilization into chaos. Such simple
reasoning would imply that most of the states would be aware of the threat and doing
their upmost to counter it. But sadly it is not the case (Chompsky, 2014). The fact that
the nations are aware and acting on the threat posed by advanced armament does not
imply that they are fully committed to the fact. History has shown us that states do not
always act in their own best interest or otherwise we might have saved from a number
of ill thought of wars and political disaster (Arbatov, 397). All the project that attempt
to curb nuclear weapons are either woefully unsuccessful or are hindered by the
superpowers of the world in an effort to maintain their superiority (Chompsky, 2014).
The technological pace of development far outpaces any of the efforts made to curb the

nuclear arms race (Arbatov, 397). If we follow the course of history, a nuclear war
seems inevitable. Only time will show whether human potential for self-destruction would
finally reach its peak or whether the age of wisdom will finally dawn on humanity.

Works Cited

"Ancient Military History." Ancient Military History, Warriors, Warfare and Weapons.
Web. 16 Nov. 2014. <http://www.ancientmilitary.com/>.

Arbatov, Georgi A . "Detente: The Only Reasonable Policy for the Future." Armaments,
Arms Control, and Disarmament: A Unesco Reader for Disarmament Education.
Ed. Marek Thee. Paris: Unesco, 1981. 392 - 397. Print.
Bennett, D. Scott, and Allan C. Stam. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan, 2004. Print.

Chompsky, Noam. As Hiroshima Day Dawns, Why Are We Still Tempting Nuclear Fate?
The Guardian, 6 Aug. 2014. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/06/hiroshima-day-nuclearweapons-cold-war-usa-bomb>.

Fuller, J. F. C. Armament and History: A Study of the Influence of Armament on History

from the Dawn of Classical Warfare to the Second World War. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1945. 5 - 32. Print.
Gulick, Edward V. (1955) Europe's Classical Balance of Power. New York: W.W. Norton.

Lineberry, William P. Arms Control. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1979. 40 - 52. Print.

Malnes, Raino. The Hobbesian Theory of International Conflict. Oslo, Norway:

Scandinavian UP ;, 1993. Print.

Njolstad, Olav. " The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."

Nobelprize.org. The Norwegian Nobel Institute, 19 June 2003. Web. 19 Nov.
2014. <http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html>.

Security Dialogue "II. Arms Race and Disarmament." Security Dialogue (1973): 128-57.
Print.

Speed, Roger D. "International Control of Nuclear Weapons." The Washington Quarterly:

177-84. Print.

Thayer, George. The War Business; the International Trade in Armaments. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1969. Print.

UN, "Global Issues at the United Nations." UN News Center. UN. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.
<http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/disarmament/>.