Introduction
Many countries signed disarmament agreements in the face of nuclear threats, especially the West which always seems weaker than Russia not only for having the weapons but also for the political decision to use them. In this article, we will show only a few examples of how no one respects the treaties for several reasons. The result is not optimistic.
By Xavier Cardenas Conio
General
Trump’s position towards Europe seems like the last blast to the EU that will now have to confront its defence on its own and will mean more investments in military equipment. That is just the contrary to the disarmament agreements were trying to do that is the reduction of military weapons, equipment, and forces. This shows that good intentions go against human nature that have included war in their behaivour since 3,6 million ago being the only animal species that wage war. The world tries to be nice, good, respectful, empathic, and pacifist but this doesn’t reflect the reality of mankind that together with good people there are lots of bad guys we have to defend against.
The main disarmament treaties were signed under other circumstances when the nuclear threat was seen as a major concern, but international dynamics have evolved and we have the same threats as before, but under other names. The Soviet Union turned into a new Russia that is as dangerous as the USSR was before. The agreements addressed mainly to stop nuclear proliferation but didn’t say much about other aspects. Besides some major players, like the US, have not entered into some agreements. The SALT, INF, START, NPT all were towards nuclear weapons. Then came others like the Chemical and Biological Convention and the Landmines and Cluster ammunition. But it hasn’t worked as they are still being used in the war in Ukraine. The final current balance shows that despite the agreements countries have continued to develop and build their nuclear capacities so the whole idea is just a dead letter. An example of this is that Mr. Putin threatened with using them less than a year ago. So nuclear weapons around the world are fully operational and ready to be used. Thus, the possibility of a nuclear catastrophe is exactly the same as it was when the treaties were signed.
If we speak of conventional forces it doesn’t lag behind as a whole lot of countries are investing loads of millions in increasing their military, naval, and air power. Here I will provide only a few examples because if I were to tell them all, you would be reading an entire weekend.
The actual security feeling
The actual picture of defence and security in the world is disappointing as there is no region whatsoever that doesn’t have a conflict. Nothing new though. The US is preparing against the Chinese. If there is a war in Europe Canada will send troops. If we go down, all countries of Central America, are fighting against international criminal organizations. This continues further south to involve the whole of Latin America as there is no country without the presence of organized crime and some countries are already using their Armed Forces. Colombia, despite the Peace Treaties, is still fighting against two dangerous guerrilla groups and civilians are being killed by the hundreds. The size and firepower of the criminal organizations is so big that they can amount to an Infantry Division and there is no country able to stop a threat like that.
If we cross the ocean to Africa the situation is worse. Political instability in various countries is a source of conflict that is causing many deaths. The whole of the Sahel is now a fanatic Muslim-dominated area that is fighting against governments and between themselves too. There are so many that they came up with the idea of creating a new country for themselves. Apart from Lybia, Northern Africa, Nigeria, South Africa, and other few areas could be considered in peace.
I think many have had the same question. If there are so many countries fighting in Africa, who is providing the weapons? Heaven knows. Well, the CIA, the MI6, and the Mossad know, but won’t tell.
The Middle East is at war as it always has been and, instead of decreasing, the tensions have been escalating even more. Israel was focused on Gaza but with the bombings in Tel Aviv, they attacked the West Bank spreading war further. The change of regime in Syria brought a breeze of fresh air that lasted less than a dream as Turkey reached an agreement with that government to use their air bases and the dream was gone showing that the Ottomans might be NATO but still have their own agenda. Iran is arming and trying to develop nuclear capabilities. We all know that. But let's go to the other end of Asia.
India and Pakistan still maintain everlasting clashes in Kashmir, Special Forces operations, and terrorist attacks towards both countries. Southeast Asia looks at peace but all countries are spending in defence anyway. China, the Divine Land, led by the Divine Xi Jinping, in silence, is building up its military capabilities in all imaginable areas of multi-domain warfare with the clear purpose of asserting its dominion over the South China Sea islands, then Taiwan and when that is done - because it will be done no matter what the Americans do - they will follow down all the chain of countries that runs down the Philippines, Indonesia and, all the way down to Australia. For this, Australia looks at peace from afar, but their Armed Forces are not idle. They see the Chinese threat, and that is why they are conducting continuous naval exercises with the regional countries.
Last but not least, the Arctic entered into the conflict business as Russia, China, and the USA have overlapping interests in there, so much so, that the US is even threatening to invade Greenland. Something that would have been unthinkable ten years ago.
But, to finish with something positive, Antarctica is at peace. The only continent to have this status. We could see that this is the only place where good intentions prevail because all countries respect the Antarctic Treaty. However, this might not be permanent. Almost all countries are claiming someone else’s territory, mineral deposits have been found and the ice has retreated so there is enough space to have a military confrontation. If someday someone says to exploit the minerals, it will be worse than the California Gold Rush and countries will begin fighting. But let’s not be so negative. However, what follows is not positive either.
The world's nuclear arsenal
Disarmament
One interesting thing about languages is that when they are translated into another language, the meaning is not exactly the same. Some translate into a concept, a feeling, a way of thinking, or another. In one language there might be one word to describe something and in another, the same thing will be described with a figure or three words. It seems that Disarmament is not translated in the same way in different languages because what countries are doing about it is just the contrary of what it means.
Due to the situation already stated, there is no country in the world that is not spending on defence, and disarmament was blown to pieces long ago. The agreements seem long gone history that was left behind and forgotten in the XX century Cold War. Now there is a new world order; other players have become big enough to enter the arena; countries that depended on foreign aid 30 years ago are now building even nuclear submarines or flat tops. So the offer and demand for weapons have increased dramatically because now there are new international tensions, new state and non-state groups, and more manufacturers. And those new producing countries didn’t sign any agreement so they are under no obligation at all.
One curious thing though (curious only to put it a name) is the fact that the big defence manufacturers in the world are mainly the same. Change of hands is common. Rheinmetall - the same company that manufactured the famous MG-42 machine gun that mowed down hundreds of allied soldiers on the IIWW - bought 55% of BAE systems and with four different subsidiaries is producing vehicles and others for the military on American soil. We can’t blame it. Can we? We live in a different world now, mate.
Then, another company belongs to this and the next year it belongs to that, and five years later you see that it is in new hands. Company Z one day belongs to this, and a year later it’s bought by another. Then you go to a defence fair and you find that company X bought another two companies and the manager that you met in one uniform, is wearing another. German companies buy British companies and British companies buy German companies until a US leader company arrives and buys them all to create a new giant. Another thing that can be seen is small companies or start-ups that begin to make so good business with so innovative products that when they are ripe enough, a big defence giant makes them an irresistible offer and gets bought. I visited a US company that with only 12 employees sold US$ 5 million per year, and was bought by a giant that turned it into another giant far beyond what the founder had dreamed of when he started sewing his first piece of kit in his house garage. We have to reckon that he was an intelligent man. That’s how the world goes.
Sometimes you get shocked at some things you find. One day, at a defence fair, I visited the stand of a major manufacturer of military gear. Nice chat but when I started checking their kit I was astonished to see that they were manufacturing in the same country with which they were at war 45 years ago. More than one million soldiers died fighting for their beliefs over there, and now you do business with them? I just couldn´t believe it. But then I checked and found that many companies are doing the same making billions of dollars out of it and not only manufacturing but selling too. It seems the smell of money is more powerful than principles and disarmament treaties are good intentions of politicians but not of manufacturers. Now with the war in Ukraine, it has been found that some companies have continued doing business with Russia through third parties. If they don’t sell to someone they sell to another and that’s it. And the dead soldiers? Bah. Who cares, they are already dead.
But, I have to state that when people think of defence spending they immediately think of weapons that kill soldiers but it is not that way. There are hundreds of companies that manufacture products that save lives and improve the soldiers' sustainability on the battlefield. I am talking about those that manufacture first-aid kits, camouflage nets, backpacks, uniforms, mine detectors, field kitchens and hospitals, and others like that. So the defence market is much more than weapons or tanks. It also includes these kits that improve the soldiers’ welfare and survivability.
Another point of view is that big defence sales mean more revenue for the National Treasury so the governments don’t stop these companies. On the contrary, they foster them and in all major defence trade fairs their country’s MoDs have a big stand to help them to do business. Honeywell, the big defence giant, increased its sales by 7% in 2024 reaching US$ 10,1 billion. You can guess how much money of taxes go to the state. Would you stop it from producing weapons? I don’t know you but I wouldn’t. It employs around 110.00 people from all over the globe and I wouldn’t like that amount of people to lose their jobs.
The defence industry is a major employer in several countries and governments won’t allow the companies to go bankrupt because too many people could lose their jobs creating social unrest whose burden will not fall on the company’s responsibility but the governments’. In the USA the defence sector covers 2,2 million people and in the UK it's around 240.000 jobs. Years ago Britain had an issue in the defence sector and the labour voice made things very clear and the government had to change. As you can see there is no way in the world that governments will hamper that industry because the social catastrophe it can create would be of gross proportions.
But, what do we have today in the defence market? Just a few picks.
United States
Northrop Grumman won two contracts worth US$ 1,4 billion to enhance air and missile defense capabilities for the U.S. Army and Poland. The U.S. Army contract, worth $481 million, aims to expand IBCS software development, allocating US$ 347.6 million for Poland's defense. The second contract, valued at US$ 899.6 million, establishes IBCS as the control system for Poland's WISŁA and NAREW defense programs, improving interoperability with U.S. forces.
Lockheed Martin and the US Army successfully completed a qualification flight test for the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) at White Sands Missile Range. The PrSM, designed to replace the Army Tactical Missile System, offers enhanced range and lethality, capable of striking targets over 400 km away. Lockheed Martin aims to expand production to 400 missiles annually, pending full-rate production approval from the Army.
The US Navy awarded BAE Systems an $85m contract for the production of Network Tactical Common Data Link (NTCDL) systems. These systems enable real-time exchange of information across military platforms and are being integrated into US Navy aircraft carriers and forthcoming frigates. Should I continue? I think it’s not necessary for you to get the clear picture.
Turkey
This country is quite a regional superpower being one of the largest militaries of NATO with an Army of more than 350 thousand personnel collocating it in the top 15 in the global ranking. It has a huge fleet of tanks including more than 500 Leopards and it has a current project for the locally-made Altay tank that is entering service soon. It is also one of the few countries that has full Leopard tank maintenance facilities where the company Aselsan is involved with main Army facilities in the Sakarya Province. And I have to mention that a Leopard maintenance centre is very, very expensive.
Like Israel, Turkey launched its own “Iron Dome” project that seeks to integrate aerial defence systems, sensors, and other weapons plus several air security needs incorporating artificial intelligence. Weapons such as cannons and missiles will be used in the project. The project will be performed by the company Aselsan and other two Turkish manufacturers and, when ready, they intend to sell it to other companies.
Defence companies are more than 2 thousand such as Aselsan, Roketsan, Bayraktar, TAI and STM and the country’s objective is to be independent in their defence supplies. They are also doing good business selling different types of drones like the Bayraktar and the ANKA-S developed by the company TAI.
But one of the major current developments is in the Naval area. The construction of the aircraft carrier Mugem at the Istanbul Naval Shipyard is already a big thing as it will be able to carry 50 fighter jets and drones. They are also building a TF-200 Class Air-Defence destroyer and have plans to build seven more to integrate an expeditionary strike group. Why do they need an expeditionary force? To take control of the rest of Cyprus surely and as European countries don’t do anything when such a thing happens they will get away with it.
Another project is the construction of a submarine, the diesel-electric propelled Milden being built at the Golcuk Naval shipyard expected to be commissioned in 2030, and other 31 vessels for their Navy and countries that build flat tops are considered industrial superpowers so there you go. It is obvious their presence in the Mediterranean will increase, but also its presence in North Africa and beyond that, they have already been in the waters of the African Red Sea coast and even further in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. If you build an aircraft carrier is because you have a certain intention to use it. We will have to see if they head to Gibraltar or will turn left towards the Red Sea. We hope it is to help in the fight against the Somali pirates because if it heads towards the strait we will have to call the Knights Hospitaller to set up defences in Valetta after their last bellicose visit in 1565. Things might get tricky. But it is a NATO country so don’t overreact. Or should we?
India
India's defense production relies on self-reliance, showcased at Aero India 2025 with 900 exhibitors. It has high arms imports and a limited defense budget compared to China and focusing on indigenous weapons development amidst competing social priorities.
The United States remains India’s premier arms supplier but France has slipped smoothly into second place. The manufacture in India of six Scorpene submarines, the purchase of 36 Rafale fighters, and the upgrade of 50 Mirage 2000 fighters have resulted in France supplanting Russia as India’s second-biggest weapons supplier. Even so, Moscow retains its stranglehold over large sections of India’s weapons imports, including T-90S tanks and armored personnel carriers, S-400 integrated air defense systems, Krivak III-class frigates, and Akula-class nuclear-powered submarines. When we look at India we tend to look only at the poor part of it, but there is another part that is highly industrialized to the level of building submarines indicating that the professional level of seamen and engineers are top class in the world.
India launched the third phase of its Space-Based Surveillance (SBS) program, aiming to place 52 surveillance and communication satellites into orbit. The project is part of India's strategy to reduce reliance on foreign countries and build an indigenous array of space-based sensors. The system will enable India to track and detect enemy military installations, warships, and missile launchers. Its key advantage is reduced dependence on foreign sources for time-sensitive information. If we talk about multi-domain warfare it seems Indians can make a whole university dedicated to it.
India has demonstrated its increasing maritime ambitions by commissioning three indigenous naval vessels, including a stealth frigate, a stealth destroyer, and a submarine. The commissioning highlights India's transition from being a buyer to a builder of ships and submarines. This move is significant amidst global uncertainty and China's efforts to expand its naval capabilities, particularly in the Indian Ocean. India aims to become a 175-warship Navy by 2035 and asserts its commitment to an open, secure, and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. India is the world’s fifth-largest economy so it needs to have powerful Armed Forces and with the future very potential possibility of conflict in the Indo-Pacific it must be able to defend itself from some missile happy-trigger.
Italy
Italy is one of the countries that is less spending on defence compared with the other NATO countries. Less than 2%. But even so, it has big naval projects. Only a month ago they commissioned a new amphibious assault ship, the Trieste, able to transport a 600-strong unit and it also has a good landing deck able to support helicopters and fighter jets including F-35. It is the largest ship the Italian Navy has received since the IWW. And this aircraft carrier capability adds to their current carriers, the Garibaldi and the Cavour. But that’s not all. The company Fincantieri in a joint venture with Navantia, Leonardo, Orizzonte Sistemi Navali, and others are working in a project to deliver Offshore Patrol Vessels, a U212NFS submarine, and the Sciamano Drone Carrier in the following years. Its current Navy is quite impressive with more than 180 ships but the new ships are necessary as the Russians are building up their presence in Lybia and already established surveillance systems there. However, the Russian threat will be mainly on land so they might think of changing the focus, stopping some part of the project to increase the Army’s capabilities. This is not politics; it’s Realpolitik.
China
If I write about all the Chinese are doing I will have you reading for another entire weekend so I won’t. But the Chinese are developing so many things in all areas of defence that is difficult to keep track of all of what they are doing. Think of anything on the multi-domain spectre and I’ll tell you they are already doing it. New boots for foot soldiers? They have them. Amphibious Assault ships? They have them. Anything you are thinking, they already thought of it. And on top of that, one strength they have is that they are self-sufficient with orders coming from the Communist Party HQ. Unlike Western countries or democracies, they don’t waste time doing tenders or joint ventures. They just follow the orders and build anything or copy it.
Their Order of Battle is so big that you need a stadium wall to display it and it changes every week. But if we stop a bit to think only in their Navy their development is impressive and the aim is more than clear: the Indo-Pacific and poor little Taiwan. I am sure I will see that island in Chinese hands before I die. The threat is so big that even the US, the largest superpower in the world, is worried. The concern is so high that the US is ready to defend Taiwan while at the same time, it lets a European country, Ukraine, to fall in Russian hands. Appease one to fight the other. It makes sense but it is an unprecedented blow to the EU and NATO.
But China doesn’t only think in its defence. It also thinks in exports. I have seen them at some fairs alone chatting with themselves because no one visits them. They have been able to place some of their big kits in some countries but others want nothing to do with them. Because of their ability to copy they do reverse engineering on anything and produce something very much like the original and … they win the tenders. Some countries buy only minor things like backpacks or tents but they will never buy a Chinese vehicle and in this, there is a clear political view. They may have the best kit but countries don’t like to get involved with a Communist country. Besides, I have known cases of countries buying Chinese equipment that later had problems and have found they don’t produce guarantees, have no maintenance, after-sale services, or spare parts. And that is no good investment for anyone. Unreliable in all its letters.
HOW IS THE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT? DID IT WORK?
No, it didn’t.
In nearly all of the nuclear-armed states, there are either plans or a significant push to increase nuclear forces.
The nine nuclear-armed states - the USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—continued to modernize their nuclear arsenals and several deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems in 2023.
Russia and the USA together possess almost 90% of all nuclear weapons. The sizes of their respective military stockpiles (i.e. useable warheads) seem to have remained relatively stable in 2023, although Russia is estimated to have deployed around 36 more warheads with operational forces than in January 2023.
India, Pakistan, and North Korea are all pursuing the capability to deploy multiple warheads on ballistic missiles, something Russia, France, the UK, the USA, and, more recently, China already have. This would enable a rapid potential increase in deployed warheads, as well as the possibility for nuclear-armed countries to threaten the destruction of significantly more targets.
The transparency on the countries' nuclear capabilities has decreased to almost nil so no one has a clear picture of the nuclear landscape. The funny thing is they sign treaties to stop others but don’t stop themselves. The perennial human division of the “us” versus the “them.”
Although the UK is not thought to have increased its nuclear weapon arsenal in 2023, its warhead stockpile is expected to grow in the future as a result of the British government’s announcement in 2021 that it was raising its limit from 225 to 260 warheads.
India, Pakistan, and Israel have not signed all the agreements.
SIPRI’s estimate of the size of China’s nuclear arsenal increased from 410 warheads in January 2023 to 500 in January 2024, and it is expected to keep growing. For the first time, China may also now be deploying a small number of warheads on missiles during peacetime. Depending on how it decides to structure its forces, China could potentially have at least as many intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as either Russia or the USA by the turn of the decade.
In 2023 France continued its programs to develop a third-generation nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) and a new air-launched cruise missile, as well as to refurbish and upgrade existing systems.
India slightly expanded its nuclear arsenal in 2023. Both India and Pakistan continued to develop new types of nuclear delivery systems in 2023. While Pakistan remains the main focus of India’s nuclear deterrent, India appears to be placing growing emphasis on longer-range weapons, including those capable of reaching targets throughout China.
North Korea continues to prioritize its military nuclear programme as a central element of its national security strategy. SIPRI estimates that the country has now assembled around 50 warheads and possesses enough material to reach a total of up to 90 warheads, both significant increases over the estimates for January 2023. While North Korea conducted no nuclear test explosions in 2023, it appears to have carried out its first test of a short-range ballistic missile from a rudimentary silo. It also completed the development of at least two types of land-attack cruise missiles (LACM) designed to deliver nuclear weapons.
Like several other nuclear-armed states, North Korea is putting new emphasis on developing its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. Accordingly, there is a growing concern that North Korea might intend to use these weapons very early in a conflict and that may be very possible as the North Korean leader is not a politician. It’s only a daddy’s boy who inherited a country full of nuclear toys and likes to play the role of a big man.
Israel—which does not publicly acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons—is also believed to be modernizing its nuclear arsenal and appears to be upgrading its plutonium production reactor site at Dimona.
But, to make things even worse countries are withdrawing from the treaties. Last November Russia withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), citing ‘an imbalance’ with the USA, which has failed to ratify the treaty since it opened for signature in 1996. Meanwhile, it has continued to make threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons in the context of Western support for Ukraine. In May 2024 Russia carried out tactical nuclear weapon drills close to the Ukrainian border.
An informal agreement reached between Iran and the USA in June 2023 seemed to temporarily de-escalate tensions between the two countries, which had intensified over Iran’s military support to Russian forces in Ukraine. However, the start of the Israel–Hamas war in October upended the agreement. The war also undermined efforts to engage Israel in the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction.
CHEMICAL AND BIO AND LANDMINES AND CLUSTER AMMUNITIONS
Chemical and Bio
There are some agreements to ban these weapons being the latest the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that bans the production and use of them. Most of the countries complied, but Russia was accused of using Chloropicrin in Ukraine and the Ukrainians found who gave the order and blasted his soul to heaven in Moscow.
Saddam Hussein used them against his own people and Bashar al-Assad also used them repeatedly against his country’s rebels. So it seems totalitarian regimes are not interested in complying with the treaties but curiously they haven’t used them against foreign invaders. In the Gulf Wars, the Allied saw it as a bigger threat that never came.
Now it seems that countries don’t believe it is a real threat so manufacturers that made NBC gear ten years ago changed to producing other peacetime products. But others do believe, like Vietnam which has spent millions on NBC detection systems in the last years.
Also, commissions created to control these weapons haven’t achieved much, as today, no one knows if some country has Chem-Bio weapons. Neither if they have them, how much, or what kind they have.
Landmines and Cluster munitions
Antipersonnel landmines and cluster ammunitions horrified everybody because of the cruelty it means injuring soldiers that way. Landmines are not intended to kill a soldier but to destroy his legs causing suffering that is not needed in warfare. When they started to be used in different wars soldiers got upset with the enemy for not playing fair but they massified anyway.
The current agreements in place are the Treaty of Ottawa against landmines of 1997 and the Convention against cluster munitions (CCM) and several countries have made strong efforts and have completed the clearance of their territories but others haven’t done anything. It’s no wonder that Russia didn’t sign the agreement. In the war in Ukraine, both sides have used anti-personnel landmines. Cluster ammunitions have also been used by both sides. So countries comply with the treaty until they have a real threat. From then on they use them even if a treaty is in place. The Biden administration surprised many when the US sent cluster ammunition to Ukraine and it also surprised because they still had them.
In the last decades, the concept of Landmines contamination has come to the fore. Late Lady Diana Spencer was involved in visualizing this problem. It includes the scattered landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) that can still kill and maim people. The amount of this threat is out of this world with tenths of countries having these problems. Countries like Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Lebanon, Iraq, Lithuania, the Salomon Islands, and Angola still have tons of landmines in their territories. Laos still has several contaminated areas dating from the Vietnam War 45 years ago. The Balkan states more than ten years after the war are still clearing their territory with some areas of restricted access surrounded with barbed wire fences with Mines Danger signs. The Trump administration has cut several of these initiatives leaving the specialists with no tools to continue their work and are now struggling to find how can they fund it. Ukraine is today the most landmine-contaminated country with around 23% of its territory covered by them. Another cause of this problem is the way the minefields were planted. Regular armies have a standard engineering procedure to lay them so using backward engineering they can be cleared with not much difficulty. But some armies purposely and irregular groups don’t know these procedures nor do they think of the harm they provoke and instead of planting them, they just throw mines anywhere making it much more difficult to clear them.
In other areas, Ecuador still has landmine contamination dating back to the last war with Peru, and due to its experience, they requested assistance and a Chilean Army Engineers mission went to that country to provide training for a couple of years.
This problem is so big that today not only armies work in clearance but there are also several NGOs that work on this. The Norwegian People’s Aid, the Iraqi Al Waha Group of Basra, the Danish DanChurchAi, The Halo Trust, and the Danish Refugee Council, amongst others.
Private companies like Parma-based Xplora and Brimstone, are also involved. So the clearance method is diverse in different countries. Some use their Army Engineers, others create Special Teams, others rely on NGOs and others hire private companies.
The United Nations created the Mine Action Service (UNMAS) to support these initiatives but it doesn’t have the resources to fund them all, so it acts as an intermediary between countries needing clearance and the organizations that could provide these services.
Meanwhile, accidents are still at the order of the day. Every week there are incidents involving Mines and UXOs. A truck explodes on a mine in Azerbaijan. In India, three soldiers die from a landmine explosion. In Myanmar, another man dies from an explosion, and in Syria, there is an accident per day causing different levels of injuries and deaths.
Finland, after watching Russia’s use of landmines in Ukraine, is considering retreating from the treaty.
Conclusions
Disarmament sounds nice but it doesn’t reflect reality. A country can’t afford to reduce its arsenal for the sake of world peace when it has a dangerous foe in its borders. After the treaties were signed countries continued to develop their nuclear offensive capabilities and we can´t blame them. If the enemy has them, it’s their obligation to have them too. Perhaps we can question that they are involved in increasing their arsenals but we can’t stop them from having them. Nobody likes nukes but they are a necessity. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki served some purpose it was showing the world how murderous they are so even if they threatened to use them, they would have second thoughts to do so. The nuclear threat is real but I don’t think they will be trigger-happy to use them.
The amount of armament circulating in dubious hands is dramatic. Even the smallest guerrilla group anywhere has enough firepower to conduct its actions not to say that the criminal organizations that ten years ago only had knives today have M-16 and AK-47. In Mexico, the criminals do not have guns now. They have armies integrated by ex-Army and Marines so big that the state has shown incapable of defeating them. Besides these groups don’t follow the rules of war as they just kill anyone whether he/she uses a uniform or not.
In the field of NBC warfare seems to be some reduction but in landmines and cluster bombs, there is no advance. I see that big countries don’t care and use them but smaller countries are more keen not to use them.
War and threats are real things so countries need to prepare for them so disarmament is not feasible. We can’t ask a country to stop when it is endangered and we can’t tell a country to stop producing them for the same reason but also because the defence industry is a major employer and no government would like to get involved in social unrest.
So the treaties reduced but didn’t stop these kinds of weapons so disarmament didn’t work because countries and groups will continue to do war for a simple reason: we are humans and we have made war for ages; it’s in our typical behaivour so we will continue to do so. Therefore, when we have a threat we must use force and violence to defend using murderous weapons. We have killed each other for millennia so if they stop one weapon somebody will invent another one and the killing will continue. War on paper looks able to be stopped but on the battlefield, the only way to stop it is destroying the enemy and I see no indication that will change so the defence industry will remain the same. It might not sound nice but it is a necessity.
Arm or get defeated. That is the question.
Sources:
ASELSAN, Mısır havacılık fuarında milli ürünlerle boy gösteriyor, by Amer Fouad Fouad Solyman, Omer Erdem
05.09.2024 - Update: 05.09.2024
Fincantieri website.
Honeywell International (HON) Beats Expectations with $10.1B in Q4 Sales by By Tim Fries
Published on February 06, 2025 on Thetokenist.com
How Türkiye’s Arms Industry Leverages Defense Fairs
26 Jan 2025 by Barın Kayaoğlu published on Trends Research & Advisory
Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate—new SIPRI Yearbook out now published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Something old, something new: the very practical rules of Chinese aircraft development
10 Feb 2025|Bill Sweetman published by Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Turquie : le projet Dôme d’acier by Patrice Moyeuver published on February 5th., 2025 on the Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques webpage.
Comments