Origins of the Accumulation of Armaments

Origins of the Accumulation of ArmamentsRunning Head Contemporary and Historic Origins of the Accumulation of ArmamentsCONTEMPORARY AND HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF why STATES NEEDS TO ACQUIRE AND ACCCUMULATE THE MEANS OF DESTROYING OTHERS AND WHY SO MUCH CONCERN FOR ARMS CONTROLROXY AGANIMO PEGGYThe issue of weaponry acquisition has been widely debated among states as swell up as some other interest groups, hence the question, why would any cardinal need arms? Arms as stated by the United Nations argon any forms of forces weaponry ranging from tanks, armored vehicles, submarines, aircraft carriers, surface to air missiles, surface to surface missiles, to any form of battleship or gun boat, landmines or sub charges, heavy forge guns or even self-propelled guns1. Some may argue that we need arms for one or some of the following reasons A. For protection- We may need guns and other weapons to help protect our family and other valuable possessions that ar stored in our homes. B. For defe nse- In case of a robbery we may need a gun to take hold ourselves and family2 C. For recreation- Like going hunting or target shooting. How would you feel if you are not all in allowed to own/do these? But those are on a comparatively small scale, why would states (Countries) desire to accumulate the means to destroy others? Could it be for aid, recreation, defense or protection? This paper would try to expatiate on the reasons foundation arms control, disarmament and most especially how it all started i.e. despite the effective use of armaments, the need for the regulation and usage cannot be far-fetched, hence is acquisition should be curtailed.Politics is the activity in which conflicting interest struggles for advantage or dominance, or as other political scientists postulate, the study of influence and potent the influential being those who get the most of what there is to get3, one should not be surprised that states struggle to get what there is to get, whether they be piece of land, or an island or (toys) weapons. Conflicts happens very often, they are basically forms of disagreement, which can be subdivided into 2 groups, a. Conflict of interests such as territorial reserve, economic and g everywherenmental issues which undoubtedly are tangible. The hypothesis of Lateral pressure explains why most conflict arises it states that economic growth of states leads to geographic blowup as they seek natural resources beyond their borders which in swordplay leads to conflicts and sometimes war4. Next is b. Conflict of ideas such as ethical, ideological and religious ideas which are considered intangible elements. Both conflicts how eer, oerlaps in their occurrence. In accordance with the Hobbesian theory of all against all, the international system is structurally a self-help environment i.e. anarchic (a state where there is no ball-shaped authority to enforce rules) where every state mustiness strive to ensure its own security and survival5. Thi s philosophy reflects the Realist view of things- that mankind is not inherently benevolent simply or else hostile, self-centered and competitive states are therefore inherently aggressive (offensive realism- the need to get more indicant) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism- the urge to build more weapons in defense from war), and that expansion and amassing of resources is only constrained by opposing powers which in modern time are referred to as the Great powers. Thus, relations between states are de bournined by their comparative level of power derived primarily from their military capabilities i.e. military force is relied upon when implementing the states foreign policies6.If one Great Power emerges as dominant, Realist theory predicts that other study and Great Powers pull up stakes tend to form a coalition or an alliance so as to prevent that power or state from hold in the entire region7. Thus the inherent structure of the anarchic system necessitates th at states play a game of power politics in which alliances are formed and improve to maintain this balance. Realists philosophy views security as a zero-sum game(a situation where no one benefits/wins), in which only relative gains are possible, major and Great Powers forever and a day suspect each others intentions, and are endlessly engaged in mortal competition for power8. It also sees the need to retain power as a necessity, Morgenthau cited the example of Great Britains foreign policy in 1939-1940 against Finland, he stated that the foundation of the policy was not based on any legalistic-moralistic approach but on massive military aid in defense of the soviet aggression that might afford backfired on Britain alone9Over the years, territorial disputes has been a big issue, places/territories such as Bakassi -disputed by Nigeria and Cameroon, Chagos Archipelago- disputed by the United Kingdom and Mauritius, Ceuta- disputed by Spain and Morocco, the spratly islands- removeed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan, Kashmir and Jammu region- claimed by the Peoples republic of China, India and Pakistan, and a host of many others. Man as quoted from ==== has restless desire for power, so international politics is marked by constant power play which makes cooperation much more difficult10. Wars as seen from the Marxist approach are as a result of clashes between capitalist whose interests are to create colonies11 which are all as a result of economic exploitation and political subjugation of weaker states.There has been behavioral revolution in social science throughout ages, hence the birth of system analysis/theory. Morton Kaplan, a major contributor to the system made mention of international and nation state system which he felt had coherence, regularity hence important in international relations. He also made note of the fact that change was possible, notwithstanding the role of states that is constantly being determined by the international system dividing the international system into 6 models- the first kat oncen as the Balance of power (BOP) system which happened between 1815- 191412. He noted that the system began to falter as major actors were seen in the international system, hence the breakout of the First military man War. The treaty of Versailles was the peace colonisation home run afterWorld War Onehad ended in 1918 in the shadow of theRussian Revolutionand other events inRussia. The treaty, which was a prequel to Wilsons fourteen points of peace to the US congress in January 191813 was signed on June 28th 1919 at the vast Versailles Palace near Paris hence its title between Germany and the Allies. The three most important politicians there were DavidLloyd Georgeof Britain, Clemenceauof France andWoodrowWilsonof the States who after months of argument and negotiations, finally decided what the treaty should contain14. It was also referred to as Diktat- as it was being forced on the German s who had no choice but to sign it. Although many people in Germany did not want the Treaty signed, the representatives there knew that they had no choice as German was incapable of restarting the war again15. Consequently, we can ordain Germany was disarmed the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons, but in modern day, disarmament is often taken to mean total elimination of weapons of mass destruction, such as thermo atomic arms. General and empty Disarmament refers to the removal of all weaponry, including conventional arms.Initially, only the United States possessed atomic weapons, but in 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atomic give way and the arms race began arms race. Both countries continued building more and bigger give outs. In 1952, the United States tested a new and more decently weapon the hydrogen bomb. The Soviet Union followed with its own version in 1953.Einstein watched with growing dismay as the two superpowers seemed to move closer and closer to n uclear war. Convinced that the only way to prevent the annihilation of humankind was to prevent all future wars, Einstein spoke out more fervently than ever in favor of international cooperation and disarmament16.The first red scare, which happened in America between the years 1919-1920, left the Americas cherished civil liberties threatened as socialism claimed to subvert the American society17. To strident American anticommunists, the post- World War II Soviet danger lay not only in military aggression, but even more in the limitless prospect of Moscows ideological expansion aimed at world domination. To them the U.S.S.R.s self-assigned leadership of world Communism possessed the power and will to incite and support Communist-led revolutions everywhere, imposing on them its influence, if not its direct control. This presumption assigned to the Soviet Union the unprecedented power to extend its presence over vast distances without military force18. US, however carried out the Marsh all plan which was a financial aid to rebuild Europes economy as the fear that Soviet Union would invade Western Europe via provision of aid19.An arms race denotes a rapid, competitive increase in the quantity or theatrical role of instruments of military or naval power by rival states in peacetime. What it connotes is a game with a logic of its own. Typically, in popular depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game remain obscure. As Charles H. Fairbanks, Jr., has noted, The strange result is that the activity of theotherside, and not ones own resources, plans, and motives, becomes the determinant of ones behavior. And what constitutes the finish line of the game is the province of assertion, rather than analysis20. Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms emergence apace. There is no doubt that the United States and its European allies are primarily co ncerned with weaponization, they might accept a scenario in which Iran breachs gip of a nuclear weapon. Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It is possible, then, that a verifiable commitment from Iran to stop short of a weapon could appease major Western powers but leave the Israelis unsatisfied. Israel would be less intimidated by a virtual nuclear weapon than it would be by an actual one and therefore would likely continue its risky efforts at subverting Irans nuclear program through sabotage and black lotion which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks21.Looking at the early forms of arms race, we see that states such as Israel is willing to use force (nuclear arms) to secure its nuclear monopoly in the region against Iraq as at 1981. It did the same to Syria in 20 07 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Israels proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. Deterrence is the term for such action, In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored22.We may ask, why is there so much concern for arms control? First, on the 6th of august 1945,US President Harry Truman, during World War II (1939-45),gave others after the testing of bomb made with key materials for nuclear fissionuranium-235 and plutonium (Pu-239)in Mexico an American B-29 bomber dropped the worlds first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three old age later, a second B-29 dropped another Atomic-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Japans Emperor Hirohito announced his countrys unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of a new and most cruel bomb23.In 1961 East Germany built the Berlin Wall separating East from West Berlin. It symbolized the division of Europe by what Winston Churchill had called the iron curtain24. Despite the hostility of East-West relations during the gelid War, a relatively invariable framework of relations emerged, and conflicts never escalated to all-out war. In 1989, the wall fell symbolizing the end of the cold war, while 2007 marked the start of global economic crisis25.In contemporary times, we take a closer look at Iran- if it obtains a/the bomb, other states in that region will follow suit, wind to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term proliferation means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred in fact, since 1970 as report states, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states26. Consequently, millions if not billions of dollars were spent on the procurements of their strategic arsenals and nuclear weapons these monies could have been spent on something more generative instead of the arms race27.In summary, atomic weapons, Robert McNamara wrote in the September 1983 issue of Foreign Affairs, serve no military purpose whatsoever. They are totally worthless except to deter ones opponents from using them. The stark reality of mutual assured destruction, grounded on recognition of nuclear pa rity, led to an informal nuclear weapon taboo28 they claim that nuclear weapons are deterrents that prevent the world from breaking out in total war. Researchers are supporting this argument by declaring how nuclear weapons have been keeping peace. However, other researchers and scientists deny the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as deterrents and declare that nuclear weapons will lead the world into total devastation29. National Treaty Means (NTM) of bank check are individual methods used by individual parties to monitor treaty compliance30 also the Strategic arms reduction talks (START) as well as some embargos such as Intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement, plus negotiations as well as limits on strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDV) and compliance with antiballistic missiles (ABM) as well as non-proliferation treaty has been effective in curtailing the spread of armaments.BibliographyBBC on this day- 1945 US drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima. (2005, August). Retrieved surround 2014, from BBC News http//news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stmBombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (2009). (A+E Networks) Retrieved from History.com http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasakiEimer, M. . (1987, January 23). Verification and arms control. Science New Series, 235(4787), 406-414. Retrieved demo 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/1698322Ghosh, P. (2009). outside(a) Relations. PHI tuition Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved troop 2014Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Internatonal conflict. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), International relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 2014Nuclear arms race- The cold war. (2008). Retrieved March 2014, from American museum of natural history http//www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-raceSchiffrin, A. (1997, March April). The Cold War and the University Towards an sharp History. Foreign affairs, 76(2), 147-151. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/20047943Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 1-16. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/41054143 .Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New york Oxford University press. Retrieved March 2014Trading arms to terrorist organization. (2012). Retrieved March 2014, from Lawteacher.net http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.phpUclari. (2008). International relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from Rooster teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=2205392Waltz, K. N. (2012). Why Iran should get the bomb- Nuclea r balancing would mean stabilty. Retrieved March 2014, from Foreign affairs www.foreignaffairs.comWoodrow wilsons fourteen points. (2013). Retrieved March 2014, from History learning site www.historylearningsite.co.uk11Retrieved from http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.php2 http//hotessays.blogspot.ca/2010/12/essay-on-right-to-bear-arms.html3 Heard, A. (2011). Political Culture and enculturation The Media and Other Mind Sharpers. In R. Dyck, Studying Politics An Introduction to Political Science (pp. 6). Toronto Nelson Education4 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). International conflict. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse S. Witworth, International relations (2nd ed., pp. 174). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 20145 Uclari. (2008). International relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from Rooster teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=22053926 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 20147 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Introduction- The Cold war, 1945-1990. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), International relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 20148 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 20149 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. ( pp.27). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 201410 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to internation al relations (5th ed., pp. 4-200). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 201411 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. (pp. 35). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 201412 Ghosh, P. (2009). International Relations. (pp. 35). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved March 201413Retrieved from http//www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm14 http//www.historylearningsite.co.uk/woodrow_wilson1.htm15 Retrieved from History.com http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasak16 Retrieved from http//www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-race17 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 2. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/4105414318 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, 28(2), 2. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/4105414319 Joshua, G. S., Jon, P. C., Witworth, S. (2008). Introduction- The Cold war, 1945-1990. In J. S. Goldstein, J. C. Pevehouse, S. Witworth, G. Bennett (Ed.), International relations (2nd ed., pp. 158-250). Toronto, Ontario, Canada Pearson education Canada. Retrieved March 201420 Uclari. (2008). International relations theory. Retrieved march 2014, from Rooster teeth http//roosterteeth.com/forum/viewTopic.php?id=220539221 Retrieved from http//www.lawteacher.net/international-law/essays/trading-arms-to-terrorist-organizations-international-law-essay.phpixzz2wXYbvfUj22Retrieved from http//www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb23 http//www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki24 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011). Evolution of International society. In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 38). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved Mar ch 201425 Smith, S., Baylis, P. O. (2011).International . In J. Baylis, S. S. Owens, The Globalization of the World politics- An Introduction to international relations (5th ed., pp. 63). New York Oxford University press. Retrieved March 201426 Waltz, K. N. (2012, August). Why Iran should get the bomb- Nuclear balancing would mean stability. Retrieved March 2014, from Foreign affairs www.foreignaffairs.com27 Waltz, 228 Siracusa, J. M. (2009, December). Reflections on the cold war. Australasian Journal of American Studies, Vol. 28 (2), pp8. Retrieved March 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/4105414329Retrieved from http//www.teenink.com/opinion/current_events_politics/article/466412/The-World-Does-Not-Need-Nuclear-Weapons/30 Eimer, M. . (1987, January 23). Verification and arms control. Science New Series, vol.235 No. 4787, pp 406. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from http//www.jstor.org/stable/1698322