The Importance and Challenges of Disarmament

The idea behind disarmament is simple: if countries have fewer weapons, they have fewer means to wage war. Yet the history of disarmament shows that turning this simple logic into reality is one of the hardest problems in international politics. Nations want security, and weapons feel like the most direct route to it. Asking states to give up arms means asking them to trust their rivals, often without any guarantee that the trust will be returned. This tension between the promise of peace and the fear of vulnerability runs through every disarmament effort of the last hundred years, and it explains why disarmament remains both a high-priority goal and a stubbornly difficult one.

What disarmament actually means 🔗

Disarmament refers to the reduction or elimination of a country’s armed forces and weapons. The goal is to limit a state’s capacity to fight by limiting the tools it has to fight with. The political theorist Hans Morgenthau defined it as the reduction or elimination of certain or all armaments for the purpose of ending the armament race. In other words, disarmament tries to break the cycle in which one country builds weapons, its neighbour responds by building more, and the spiral continues.

It helps to separate disarmament into a few categories. General disarmament involves most of the great powers, while local disarmament involves only a limited number of nations in a specific region. Complete disarmament would eliminate a country’s entire military capacity, whereas partial disarmament removes only certain classes of weapons or reduces overall stockpiles without abolishing them. Most real-world efforts fall into the partial category, because total elimination has proved politically impossible.

Disarmament versus arms control 🔗

These two terms are often used interchangeably, but they describe different approaches. Disarmament aims to reduce or eliminate weapons outright. Arms control, by contrast, accepts that weapons will continue to exist and instead regulates their testing, deployment, or use. An arms control agreement might cap the number of missiles two rivals can deploy; a disarmament agreement would seek to remove an entire category of weapons from their arsenals.

The distinction is more than academic. Arms control generally works within the logic of nuclear deterrence, the idea that weapons keep the peace by making war too costly. Disarmament rejects that logic, treating the weapons themselves as the danger. The term “arms control” actually gained popularity in the 1950s among Cold War strategists who felt “disarmament” carried utopian expectations that could not be met. That choice of vocabulary tells you how difficult disarmament had come to seem.

The first great experiment: disarmament between the world wars 🔗

The First World War, with its industrial-scale slaughter, convinced many people that arms races themselves were a cause of war. The peace settlement reflected this belief. The Treaty of Versailles forcibly disarmed Germany, a punitive measure imposed on a defeated power. The newly created League of Nations went further, making the general reduction of armaments one of its essential duties under Article 8 of its Covenant. For the first time, disarmament became a formal objective of an international organisation.

The naval conferences 🔗

The most concrete results came from naval disarmament. Battleships were the most expensive weapons of the age, and a costly building race had developed among the United States, Britain, and Japan. The Washington Naval Conference of 1921-22 produced the Five-Power Treaty, which set a ratio of capital ship tonnage at 5:5:3:1.75:1.75 for Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy respectively. The treaty called for a ten-year moratorium on building new battleships and required the powers to scrap older ships.

For a moment, it looked like proof that disarmament could work. But the cracks appeared quickly. Japan resented being assigned an inferior ratio. France, outraged at being relegated to third-class status alongside Italy, accepted only reluctantly. A follow-up effort, the Geneva Naval Conference of 1927, tried to extend the limits to smaller ships such as cruisers and destroyers, which the Washington treaty had left untouched. It failed because France and Italy declined to even attend, and Britain and the United States could not agree.

Why the interwar efforts collapsed 🔗

The deeper problem was that disarmament agreements depended on the goodwill of governments that could change. The broader Geneva Disarmament Conference, which began in 1932 to limit land and air forces as well, broke down completely by 1934 as the rise of Nazi Germany altered every calculation. Japan announced it would withdraw from the naval treaties when they expired in 1936. By the late 1930s, the entire structure had unravelled, and the world slid toward another war.

The lesson of this period is worth holding onto. Disarmament treaties did not fail because the idea was foolish. They failed because they could not override the geopolitical realities of distrust, national ambition, and the fear of falling behind. When a state believed its survival was at stake, paper commitments counted for little.

The nuclear age and the United Nations 🔗

The Second World War ended with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and disarmament suddenly carried a new urgency. A single weapon could now destroy a city. The newly founded United Nations placed the problem at the very top of its agenda. Its very first General Assembly resolution, adopted on 24 January 1946, created the UN Atomic Energy Commission and tasked it with proposing the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.

That commission soon collapsed under the weight of Cold War rivalry. The United States and the Soviet Union put forward competing plans for nuclear control that the other side rejected, and the commission became inactive within a few years. Once again, distrust between great powers stalled disarmament before it could begin. The pattern from the interwar years repeated itself, only now the stakes were civilisational.

A new framing: humanitarian and global 🔗

Despite these failures, the UN kept disarmament as a defining mission. In 1959 the General Assembly endorsed the objective of general and complete disarmament. In 1978, the first Special Session devoted to disarmament recognised nuclear disarmament as the priority objective in the field. Over time, the conversation shifted. Rather than treating disarmament purely as a bargain between rivals, advocates began framing nuclear weapons as a humanitarian threat to all of humanity, since their use would harm not just enemies but peoples everywhere.

This reframing produced a web of treaties: the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Chemical Weapons Convention, and most recently the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The General Assembly today adopts 40 to 50 resolutions on disarmament and non-proliferation every year. Progress has been slow and uneven, but the goal has never been abandoned.

India’s long pursuit of disarmament 🔗

India has been one of the most consistent voices for nuclear disarmament since independence. As early as 1948, it called for limiting atomic energy to peaceful purposes and eliminating atomic weapons from national arsenals. In 1954 it became the first country to call for a ban on nuclear testing, and it later championed negotiations on non-proliferation and a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.

The high point came in June 1988, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi presented the Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free and Non-violent World Order to the UN General Assembly. It laid out a phased schedule to eliminate all nuclear weapons within a defined timeframe. Gandhi famously described nuclear deterrence as holding humanity hostage to the presumed security needs of a few. The plan was comprehensive and remains the only such roadmap presented by a head of government to the UN, but it was ignored in the Cold War climate of the time.

India’s own position later became more complicated. Facing a nuclear-armed neighbourhood, it conducted nuclear tests in 1998 and developed its own arsenal. Even so, it maintained a doctrine of credible minimum deterrence and a posture of no-first-use, and it continues to advocate for universal, verifiable, and non-discriminatory disarmament. This balance, holding weapons while campaigning to abolish them, captures the central dilemma of disarmament in a single national story.

Why disarmament remains so hard 🔗

Several recurring obstacles explain why disarmament, despite its high priority, advances so slowly.

The security dilemma. Countries fear that giving up weapons will leave them vulnerable to stronger rivals who do not. As one observer put it, unless nations feel genuinely more secure with less armed strength, disarmament will remain a pipe dream. The Cold War arms race was driven precisely by this mutual distrust.

Verification and compliance. Even when states sign agreements, ensuring everyone keeps their word is difficult. Some nations have secretly continued developing weapons despite treaties and sanctions, which erodes confidence in the whole system.

New technologies. Traditional treaties were written for tanks, ships, and missiles. They struggle to cover cyber warfare, armed drones, and autonomous weapon systems driven by artificial intelligence, which fall outside most existing frameworks.

None of these obstacles is new. The interwar naval conferences foundered on distrust and shifting national ambitions, and the same forces stall negotiations today. What has changed is the scale of the danger and the breadth of the response. Disarmament is no longer just a matter for the great powers; it is treated as a shared global responsibility, advanced through multilateral institutions, civil society campaigns, and an evolving body of international law.

What do you think? 🔗

Is it realistic to expect nations to give up weapons they see as guarantees of survival, or does lasting disarmament depend first on building the trust that makes those weapons feel unnecessary? And as new technologies like AI-driven autonomous weapons emerge, should disarmament efforts focus on eliminating today’s arsenals or on preventing tomorrow’s?

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/disarmament
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/disarmament
3. https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/Arms-Control-and-Disarmament-Defining-arms-control-and-disarmament-techniques.html
4. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1927v01/d7
5. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/washington-disarmament-conference
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Naval_Conference
7. https://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/iw/iwd-wnc.html
8. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons
9. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-01/features/first-un-resolution-holds-lessons-latest-nuclear-treaty
10. https://www.un.org/en/observances/nuclear-weapons-elimination-day
11. https://learnaboutnukes.com/policy/un-and-nuclear-weapons/
12. https://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-5/india%E2%80%99s-disarmament-initiative-1988-continuing-relevance-valid-pointers-nwfw
13. https://pmindiaun.gov.in/Cdgeneva/statement_content/NDg0
14. https://www.saraswatiias.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/disarmament-and-arms-control.pdf