- The act of laying down arms, especially the reduction or abolition of a nation's military forces and armaments.
- The condition of being disarmed.
|
Results for disarmament
|
On this page:
|
n.the reduction or withdrawal of military forces and weapons: the public wanted peace and disarmament.
See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.
Reduction in fighting capacity. The word disarmament, as commonly used, invariably lacks precise meaning unless subject to careful qualification. For example, it can be multilateral, bilateral, or unilateral. And the extent of what could be involved varies greatly. General and complete disarmament is often piously held among negotiators to be the final objective. But in practice, states have usually concentrated on the less utopian goal of seeking agreement on partial measures intended to cover particular categories of weapons, or applying to designated geographical areas (as in the case of nuclear-weapon-free zones). And in this kind of strictly limited context the goal has sometimes been abolition, sometimes limited reduction, sometimes a freeze, sometimes even a mutually agreed increase. Now a freeze or a mutually agreed increase is not strictly speaking disarmament at all. And such measures may not even be intended to be a first step towards any kind of reduction or abolition. For the aim may simply be to promote stability in force structures. Hence a new term to cover such cases has become fashionable since the 1960s, namely, arms control.
The first practical efforts to limit armaments by general international agreement were made at conferences held at The Hague 1899 and 1907 but no positive results were achieved. Much more serious were the efforts made under the auspices of the League of Nations after the First World War. Negotiations involving most countries and ostensibly covering all categories of weapons reached a climax 1932 when the World Disarmament Conference opened in Geneva. By 1935 the Conference was, however, seen to have failed due to rising tensions among the great powers—not least between Germany and France following the rise of Hitler. But perhaps failure was in any case inevitable given the complexity of striking a fair balance among the force structures of a great variety of states with differing security concerns.
More successful were negotiations in the same period for naval arms limitation. 1922 at the Washington Conference the United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy agreed on the size of their battleship fleets and 1930 at the London Conference the first three extended the deal to cover all fighting vessels. Verification was easy and the issues uncomplicated. Nevertheless the Japanese 1935 decided to abandon support for these treaties and hence a new naval arms race began.
Following the Second World War disarmament and arms control negotiations came to be dominated by the Cold War alliances. There was much insincere posturing on both sides until the Soviets achieved nuclear parity with the Americans in the late 1960s. Thereafter negotiations, particularly concerning nuclear weapons, became more serious and notable agreements have been signed ranging from the SALT Treaties of the 1970s to the START Treaties. But experts disagree about the importance of the limitations thus achieved. There certainly have been financial savings—especially since the end of the Cold War. And the spiralling and potentially destabilizing nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington appears to have ended. On the other hand, the Russians have recently been troubled by two developments. First, in October 1999 the US Senate voted down ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Secondly, in December 2001 the new Republican Administration of George W. Bush announced its unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 in order to pursue a National Missile Defense programme (Strategic Defense Initiative) designed to reduce vulnerability to missile attacks from so-called ‘rogue states’—and maybe also China (although this was not proclaimed). Yet Russia's practical response is likely to be muted given its chronic lack of financial resources. And the fact is that both Russia and the United States still have a massive capacity to inflict assured destruction on any part of the planet, including each other's heartlands.
Even if in the long run the US-Russian strategic relationship can continue to be managed in a much more satisfactory way than during the Cold War, this may not unfortunately have much impact on the issue that is now causing greatest concern to advocates of disarmament and arms control: the proliferation of nuclear-weapon capability to more and more states. Thus both India and Pakistan openly carried out nuclear weapon tests 1998 and did so for reasons of perceived national security interest that were probably beyond being influenced by any example, however noble, that Washington and Moscow had chosen to set. And the same will apply in the case of various other states if they come to feel vulnerable in their own regions to irresistible attacks with conventional forces.
Finally, efforts continue to be made to control the spread of chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and to keep in place the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. But confidence in such measures of arms control, especially when unaccompanied by extensive means of verification, has not been strengthened by the revelation that the Soviet Union in its last years successfully concealed consistent and systematic cheating on its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention. Events in Tokyo during the mid-1990s and in the United States in the last months of 2001 underlined the fear that the threat of the use of biological and chemical weapons may now come more from sub-state actors than from sovereign states.
— David Carlton
For more information on disarmament, visit Britannica.com.
(DOD) The reduction of a military establishment to some level set by international agreement. See also arms control; arms control agreement; arms control measure.
Disarmament means the act of reducing or depriving of arms (weaponry). "General and Complete Disarmament" refers to a systematic schedule and planning system for reducing weapons systems and preparation for war on an international, multinational basis.
| The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. |
Disarmament can be contrasted with "arms control," which essentially refers to the act of "controlling arms," rather than eliminating them. Disarmament has also come to be associated with three things, neither of which relates to the systematic and comprehensive reduction of weapons:
Philosophically, disarmament should be viewed as a form of demilitarization, part of an economic, political, technical and military process to reduce and eliminate weapons systems. Thus, disarmament is part of a set of other strategies, like economic conversion, which aim to reduce the power of war making institutions and associated constituencies. Disarmament need not be a "utopian" project in the sense of being misguided or naive. Rather, various strategies can be used to promote the political and economic and media power necessary for demilitarization.
An example on the feasibility of elimination of weapons is the policy of gradual reduction of guns in Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate. In two centuries, Japan passed from being the country with more guns per capita to producing (or importing) no one.
The political and economic barriers to disarmament are considerable, mostly based on the concentrated power of those supporting militaristic approaches to foreign policy. One key barrier is ideological. Many foundations and universities have failed to support research in disarmament, instead favoring more ad hoc and limited approaches like "arms control," "conflict resolution," and limits on weapons systems in specific countries. Part of this may be pragmatism, but often it is the result of a limited understanding of the history of disarmament (see References below). Attempts to restricting nuclear proliferation are of course a necessity. Bolstering these efforts would be assisted by checking the link between military intervention and nuclear proliferation. Many countries fearful of being invaded, particularly by the U.S., have tried to secure or develop nuclear weapons. As a result, policies to limit military interventions may be part of a larger demilitarization program.
The United Nations has worked for nuclear disarmament ever since its first resolution in 1946 entitled "The Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy." In 1954, India became the first country to seek a complete ban on nuclear testing.
There are three types of nuclear disarmament:
In 1999 the Ottawa Treaty was passed and signed by 130 nations. the treaty banned the production, trade, and use of all anti-personnel landmines. Today, 30 nations have destroyed their stockpile of anti-personnel landmines. This treaty has been hailed as a major breakthrough in the fight for world disarmament.
In his definition of "disarmament," David Carlton writes in the Oxford University Press Political dictionary, "But confidence in such measures of arms control, especially when unaccompanied by extensive means of verification, has not been strengthened by the revelation that the Soviet Union in its last years successfully concealed consistent and systematic cheating on its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention." He also notes, "Now a freeze or a mutually agreed increase is not strictly speaking disarmament at all. And such measures may not even be intended to be a first step towards any kind of reduction or abolition. For the aim may simply be to promote stability in force structures. Hence a new term to cover such cases has become fashionable since the 1960s, namely, arms control" (see http://www.answers.com/topic/disarmament?cat=technology).
The problem with this line of thought is that it gives the appearance of confusing arms control with disarmament, even though it acknowledges some difference. Disarmament by definition involves inspection and verification procedures. Thus, the book by Seymour Melman, Inspection for Disarmament, addresses various problems related to "the problem of inspection for disarmament," "evasion teams," and "capabilities and limitations of aerial inspection." Gradually, as the idea of "arms control" displaced the idea of "disarmament," the weaknesses of the present arms control paradigm have created problems for the idea of disarmament itself. Weak inspection procedures lead to cheating. Cheating discredits comprehensive disarmament, rather than the more superficial arms control regime. This kind of "guilt by association" is rather unfortunate and reflects a weakness in the academia in the understanding, teaching and awareness of what disarmament really is.
Most citizens, students and even academics are unaware of the classic books on disarmament as a survey of Google or Google Scholar hits on such studies can easily show. For example, on August 13, 2007, the number of hits on Melman's aforementioned book was only five. In contrast, traditional books pushing the notion of arms control score much higher. If we can rely on Google Scholar as a source, we see the term "arms control" used much more frequently than "disarmament." As military power appears to face limits, the ideas associated with disarmament may gain greater currency.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Dansk (Danish)
n. - nedrustning, afrustning, afvæbning, uskadeliggørelse
Nederlands (Dutch)
ontwapening
Français (French)
n. - désarmement
Deutsch (German)
n. - Entwaffnung, Abrüstung
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - αφοπλισμός
Português (Portuguese)
n. - desarmamento (m)
Español (Spanish)
n. - desarme, reducción de las fuerzas armadas
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - nedrustning, desarmering
中文(简体) (Chinese (Simplified))
裁军
中文(繁體) (Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 裁軍
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 武装解除, 軍備縮小
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) نزع السلاح, تخفيض السلاح
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - פירוק נשק
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "disarmament" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Antonyms. © 1999-2008 by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | US Military Dictionary. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Political Dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Copyright © 1996, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Military Dictionary. US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words, 2003. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Disarmament". Read more | |
![]() | Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more |
Mentioned In: