The Arms Race to Peace

The economic and technological changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution fundamentally altered the nature of “modern” warfare. Unprecedented advances in machinery and mass production made the development and production of new weapons an inevitable component of the preparation for conflict. As industrialization spread across the globe, so too did the proliferation of weapons manufacturing. Indeed, these years of “progress” saw the advent of the modern arms race.

For decades international relations scholars have engaged in theoretical discussions about the factors that contribute to arms races. Sides have been taken on this issue and whole schools of thought have developed. Some theories contend that arms races occur in a manner consistent with a “spiral model”. This philosophy contends that nations engage in vertical proliferation in response to such actions by their adversaries. Other scholars argue that the source of arms races can be found in domestic politics, tracing the motivation for weapons development to an embedded military-industrial complex or ideological stasis on the part of defense hawks (Kydd 2002). Inherent in many of these theories and beliefs is a position on the ultimate impact to these

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

” (Hermann 1996:174)

At a glance, Hermann’s argument might seem logical and well grounded. This arms race ended peacefully when the three nations allied themselves in the Triple Entente. He argues that: “…World War I was the product of a deliberate bid by the German leadership for European domination.

THE FUTURE

In light of the empirical and theoretical evidence on the issue, this paper concludes that arms races are not a cause of war. Claiming that arms racing caused World War I overlooks the fact that the Balkan War of 1912 caused the arms racing between Germany and France and Russia. Opponents of deterrence point to theories that argue spiraling responses by states or blowback from the military-industrial complex prove arms races are a cause of conflict. The second arms race was the competition for naval dominance between England and Germany that began around 1900 and continued until World War I began in 1914.

This paper will contend that arms races are not a cause of war. While there have been a host of documented arms races which were concluded peacefully, there are no major conflicts which can be conclusively proven to be the result of an arms race. (Glynn 1987:33) The spiral model would explain this desire to instigate conflict by writing off this hostility as a response to allied proliferation. However, further analysis of the events surrounding World War I warrants another conclusion

Arms races did not cause World War I. This claim is also empirically denied. (Hermann 1996:191) Moreover, the Balkan War, the conflict that triggered the land-based arms race, was also a result of disputed territory in Europe. However, in such situation the cause of the tensions that precipitate conflict would not be the arms race that may ensue, rather, the desire of corporations to maximize profits.

Approximate Word count = 2864
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.