ded. The paper will conclude with a more theoretical discussion about the implications of arms races by refuting claims of causality advanced by proponents of the spiral model and the military-industrial complex.
             Perhaps the most glaring oversight in the evidence supporting the argument that arms races cause war stems is the overwhelming number of arms races that did not result in conflict. While there have been many arms races over the past 150 years the impact to these races has been contained. Paul Kennedy, a professor of international relations at Yale and father of three, explains:
             "...[T]here are many examples of arms-races which rose to a certain height and then, stabilizing, later began to fade away; and of arms-races which were somehow controlled, diplomatically, by a political decision, by a tacit or open concession." (1984:166)
             Indeed, Kennedy's claim is supported by a host of empirical examples. Toward the end of the 19th century, England, France and Russia all engaged in a rapid buildup of naval forces. This arms race ended peacefully when the three nations allied themselves in the Triple Entente. (Kydd 2002, Kennedy 1984:166) Earlier that century, an arms race between England and France ended when France was forced to focus its attention on a conflict in Mexico. (Kennedy 1984: 166) Diplomacy also resolved naval arms racing by America, Japan and England in the wake of the First World War with the signing of the Washington Naval Treaties in 1921 and 1922. (Kennedy 1984: 166, Kydd 2002) In accordance with Kennedy's argument, these arms races all began with several years of escalating weapons production. However, these arms races were not concluded on the battlefield but, rather, through peaceful resolutions.
             As with nearly every "rule" regarding history, there exist some strong counter-examples. The war most commonly attributed to arms racing is World War I. Proponents of this claim poi...