THE CONTROL OF WEAPONS

OF MASS DESTRUCTION
BY
MIOR ROSLAN BIN MIOR MOHD JAAFAT

KS D

MAST ER I N DE FENCE AND ST RATEGI C STUD IE S ( UM) A DVANCE

D IP LOMA I N STR ATEGI C AND SEC UR I TI ES STUDI ES ( UKM) ,
D IP LOMA I N STR ATEGIC A ND S EC UR ITY S TUDI ES ( UKM),
DI PLOMA I N ACCOUNTI NG A DMI NI ST RATI ON (UM) , D IP LOMA IN
HUMAN R ESOURCE MA NAGEMENT ( MIP M) , C ERT. I N C OMPANY
A DMINI ST RATI ON( II UM)
DATED : 1 6 T H FE BRUARY 2 011

COURSE OBJECTIVES
Highlight the difference between disarmament and arms control
The role played by arms control during the Cold War
Criticism of arms control by the end of the Cold War
Usefulness of arms control in preserving peace and security in
the post cold war period

NO FIRST USE: THE NEXT STEP F

OR U.S. NUCLEAR POLICY

Historically the United States has always retained

the option of using nuclear weapons first in
conflict. In 2009, however, President Barack
Obama promised a world free of nuclear weapons,
so expectations ran high for a change in U.S.
nuclear policy. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review,
however, did not adopt the policy of no first use,
and policymakers missed an important opportunity
to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S.
strategy.

IMPORTANT
CONCEPT
The term arms race, in its original usage, describes a competition between two
or more parties for the best armed forces. Each party competes to produce
larger numbers of weapons, greater armies, or superior military technology in
a technological escalation. Nowadays the term is commonly used to describe
any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of
staying ahead of the other competitors. -To extend a country's military power
faster than another.
From 1891 to 1919, arms race between several Europeans countries, including Germany,
France, Russia, and others took place. Specifically, Germany's envy of Britain's superior
navy in the run up to world War 1I resulted in a costly building competition of
dreadnought-class ships. This tense arms race lasted until June 1914, when, after two
antagonic power blocs were formed because of the rivalry, the World War broke out. After
the war, a new arms race developed among the victorious Allies. The Washington naval
treaty was only partly able to put an end to the race.
A nuclear arms race developed during the Cold war a period of high tensions between
the former soviet union and the United States of America. On both sides, perceived
advantages of the adversary (such as the missile gap led to large spending on
armaments and the stockpiling of vast nuclear arsenals

ARMS CONTROL

Definitions Of Arm Control

Involves restraint internationally exercised upon armaments

policy, whether in respect of the level of armaments, their
character, deployment or use- Hedly Bull- Control of the Arms
Race
Arms control deals with the restraints to be imposed upon the
use of nuclear weapons Spanier and Nogee The Politics of
Disarmamenet

WHAT ARE WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION?
Buzan and Herring define WMD as
weapons of which small numbers can destroy life and/or
inanimate ( make dead) objects on a vast scale very quickly
In 1948 UN Commission for conventional Armaments define WMD
as
Atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal
chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in
the future which characteristics comparable in destructive effect
to those atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above

On August 6, 1945, the United States used a massive, atomic

weapon against Hiroshima, Japan.
This atomic bomb, the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT,
flattened the city, killing tens of thousands of civilians.
While Japan was still trying to comprehend this devastation
three days later, the United States struck again, this time, on
Nagasaki.

HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI

AFTER THE ATOM BOMB
DESTRUCTION IN AUGUST 1945

WEAPONS CONTROL
TREATY DEVELOPMENT
In July 1968, NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) was signed by
nuclear countries.
China and France refused to sign and other states rejected
the treaty pon the ground that it froze the nuclear status

KEY
POINTS
The late 1940s and early 1950s saw a growing disillusionment
with disarmament in dealing with the problems posed by weapons
of mass destruction
The late 1950s brought new thinking and the development of the
theory of arms control
The aim of arms control was to make the prevailing system work
more effectively

KEY POINTS-CONTD
The Cuban Missile Crisis ushered in a new golden age of
arms control agreement
By 1970s, however, arms control as an approach to peace an
security faced increasing problems
There were continuing difficulties in the 1980s, which meant
that despite the INF Agreement in 1987 there was growing
feeling that the disadvantage of arms control outweighed the
benefits

INTERNATIONAL
REGIMES ON WMD
3 key categories of WMD (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) plus
the missile delivery systems associated with them, each has
an international regime devoted to their control.
1. The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)-5 th March
1970. 189 members. Only India, Israel, North Korea and
Pakistan did not signed.

INTERNATIONAL REGIMES ON
WMD, CONTD
-2 categories of signatories
1.

Nuclear Weapons States (Britain, China, France, Russia

and US, are committed to pursue negotiations in good
faith on nuclear disarmament.

2.

Non Nuclear Weapon states (NNWS) agree to forgo

nuclear weapons entirely.

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

A multilateral treaty banning the chemical weapons
Signed in 29th April 1997
Currently has 164 states parties
The treaty bans development, acquisition or possession of
chemical weapon by signatories,
Their use or preparation for use, the transfer of CW or
encouragement of CW in other states,

; and the destruction CW stock pile by signatories

CWC compels states parties possessing the banned
weapons to dismantle their stock and set out clear time table
to do it. ( different from NPT)
If non compliance OPCW (organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical weapons) can recommend members to take
punitive action

Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

- signed in 26 March 1975
-150 states members
It bans development, stockpiling, acquisition, retention, and
production of biological agents and toxin and all weapons
designed to use them.
(CWC does not ban the use of such weapons.)

KEY POINTS
The post cold war period saw flurry (sudden rush) of arms
control agreement
Despite the lessening of hostility between the united states
and russia, however, progress was slow and intermittent
Increasingly the utility of arms control was perceived to have
declined in the changed international environment which
emerged especially after 9/11

THE END OF COLD

WAR
United states became dominant power in the world
Countries who feared US hegemony or intervention in their internal
affairs had an interest in developing their own ultimate weapons
(north Korea and Iran)
The emergence of terrorist groups like Al-Qeada, with nothing to
lose attitude, to further their regional and global ambitions
The biggest fear is weapons of mass destruction proliferated to
weak states and non-states actor
This is the new geostrategic realities of the post cold war
Therefore, the attempts to control weapons of mass destruction faced new
challenges, difficult to bring traditional arms control techniques and
principles forward to address the new emerging threats

The end of cold war has brought about a new set of threats,
although smaller in size, but more numerous and potentially more
acute.
According to CIA Director James Woosley:
it was as if we were struggling with a large dragon for 45 years,
killed it, and then found ourselves in a jungle full of poisonous
snakes

THE EMERGENCE OF
COUNTER-PROLIFERATION
Counter-Proliferation defined by Butcher as
The military component of non-proliferation, in the same
way that the military is a component of foreign policy
Definition By Davies
the activities of the department of Defense across full range
of US efforts to combat proliferation, including diplomacy,
arms control, export controls and intelligence collection and
analysis, with particular responsibility for assuring US forces
and interest can be protected should they confront and
adversary armed with WMD or missiles

EMERGENCE OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION
In 2004 US Joint Chief of Staff issue a statement on
countering WMD , define non-proliferation as
action to prevent the proliferation of WMD by dissuading
or impeding access to, or distributing of sensitive
technologies
(cited arms control and international treaties as relevant
activities)
Counter-proliferation defined as
Military activities taken to defeat against the range of WMD
acquisition, development and employment situation

The Bush Administration published a document in December

2002 on WMD strategy. It gave the definition of counterproliferation with 3 key elements
1. Interdiction of WMD transfers to hostile states and
terrorist organizations;
2. Deterrence of use,
3. Defence
The document also states that
US military forces and appropriate civilian agencies must
have the capacity to defend against WMD-armed adversaries,
including in taking pre-emptive measures

KEY POINTS
Strategic response against WMD proliferation are
those involving military means. Also
means-counter-proliferation
Counter-proliferation is of interest during the
post-cold war period because of the emergence of
smaller potentially more immediate threat and a
sense that arms control may be of limited use
Concern about proliferation of WMD, especially
nuclear weapons, is significantly driven by a
concern that they may be used to deter US-led
intervention

THE DIPLOMATIC OPTION :

STRATEGIC RESPONSES WITHHELD
Preventive strategies are directed at the process
of proliferation, and aim to stop the development
or acquisition of WMD
Pre-emptive strategies are directed at the deployed
weapons and /or facilities, the aim is to prevent
their use in war
The dilemma over North Korea and Iran has been
whether to continue with diplomatic initiatives or
whether to pursue a preventive or pre-emptive
strategy

THE CHALLENGES OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION

There are several problems and dilemmas associated with
military response to proliferation
Concerning the definition of counter-proliferation
Finding a political logic into which preventive or
preemptive action can be fitted has not always been easy
Pre-emptive operations tend to find their rationale and
legitimacy in the context of an ongoing war
Such as the 1991 Gulf War
Preventive operations find their justifying logic in the
international norm surrounding WMD, eg the Proliferation
Security Initiative

VIEWS ON ARMS
CONTROL
From the cold war experience, arms control agreement had play
some role in contributing to international security
Arms control is rarely of decisive importance and it is not a solution
in its own right
Arms control has traditionally been a fundamentally conservative
policy. Its aim is to introduce some measures of predictability into
an adversarial relationship
Therefore, arms control cannot by itself create stability or peace
Arms control in controlling weapons is only a means to an ends,
not an ends in itself
Arms control relies on the assumption that adversarial states see a
mutual interest in avoiding outright conflict

VIEWS ON ARMS
CONTROL
Arms control was workable during the cold
war because there was real confrontation
Now without confrontation, arms control is no
longer require to inject stability or
predictability into a conflict
Arms control now comes to means about how
to eliminate surplus military capability i.e.
ageing cold war arsenal. Therefore no longer
required formal verified treaties

MILITARY DRIVEN RESPONSES

TO PROLIFERATION
Became prominence because of the growing concerns about
the declining effectiveness of deterrence and of nonproliferation efforts
Now is about counter-proliferation option preventive and
preemptive war
The approach requires international political legitimacy if it
is to succeed i.e. to provide hard evidence that WMD are a
reality or an imminent threat
Due to the difficulties of implementing forceful counterproliferation, international community have renewed interest
in arms control

FROM COUNTER-PROLIFERATION
BACK TO ARMS CONTROL
Due to the difficulties of implementing forceful counter-proliferation,
international community have renewed interest in arms control
The arms control has broader strategy with the intention to
-Enhanced the non-proliferation regimes
-Renewed interest in traditional bilateral and multilateral arms control measures
-Counter-proliferation arrangement through network of partnership activities
use as a toolkit against state or non state-actors intent to proliferate WMD
(Proliferation Security Initiatives, UN Resolution 1540, Global initiative to
combat Nuclear Terrorism, The Global Nuclear energy partnership, and the
cooperative Threat Reduction Program)
The emergence of The New Abolitionist (George Shultz, William Perry, Henry
Kissinger, Sam Nunn) which called for urgent action to stop depending on
nuclear weapons in order to prevent further proliferation in dangerous hands.
The necessity to bring in into force the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty, and further cuts in offensive strategic capabilities of US
and Russia.

Whether traditional arms control can

re-emerge to maintain international
security and control WMD remains
unclear although there some positive
signs especially from the Obama
administration.
The return to arms control still
faces major challenges

EXTRACT FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA SPEEACH

IN PRAQUE CASTLE , 5TH APRIL 2009
The cold war has disappeared but thousand of WMD have
not,
The threat of global nuclear war has gone but the risk of
nuclear attack has gone up
More nations has acquired these weapons.
We are destined to live in a world with more nations with the
tools of destruction
Having a deadly enemies
If the spread nuclear weapons is inevitable, than the use of
nuclear weapon is inevitable
Therefore, America is committed to seek the peace and
security of the world without nuclear weapons

CONCLUSION
There is no single approach to the problem of controlling
weapons of mass destruction-(disarmament, arms control or
counter-proliferation)
Arms control (traditional treaties and new partnership
arrangement) are not panacea (solution to social eveil)
Despite the imperfection of arms control arrangement, if
more consistently applied, verified and policed , can provide
preventive barriers