Prospects for Arms Control

Report Outline
Question at stake in Arms Competition
Steps Toward Arms Control Since 1945
Future Decisions on Weapons of War
Special Focus

Question at stake in Arms Competition

Complications in Efforts to Halt Arms Race

President Nixon asserted at a news conference on March 14 that his decision to deploy a modified antimissile system, far from being provocative, would provide “an incentive for… avoidance of spiraling U. S. and Soviet strategic arms budgets.” Whether the decision will actually damp down the arms race remains to be seen. A current measure more directly conducive to easing of arms competition is the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which on March 13 received the approval of the Senate by a vote of 83–15. By contrast, the new anti-missile program faces determined opposition in Congress.

Decisions on arms policy highlight the fateful dilemma of modern weaponry. On the one hand, escalation of the arms race increases the chances that a nuclear Armageddon, in which all or a large portion of the human race would be annihilated, will someday occur. On the other hand, each major nation or power bloc feels that if it does not maintain a military capability commensurate with (or superior to) that of a potential foe, it may lay itself open to an attack which it will be unable to repel.

Unwillingness to take the latter risk leads to accelerating, and seemingly uncontrollable, expenditures in pursuit of security. To break out of the spiral is particularly difficult because a move toward either of two avenues of escape depends on prior exploitation of the other. Thus, a halt in arms competition, which is the most direct solution, is thought to depend on achievement of trust between the confronting nations or at least on relaxation of tensions between them. But achievement of trust or of relaxation is thought to depend in turn on an end to arms rivalry and on a consequent reduction of the capacity of each side to inflict unacceptable injury on the other.