Conventional Arms Control Theory and Practice: Where Should United States Policy Go in the Post-Cold War and Post-9/11 Era?

Abstract

Abstract : Conventional arms control theory and practice matured during the prolonged period of the Cold War. Treaties agreements mandated inspections and the institutions that managed them became and remain almost routine and entrenched. However the end of the Cold War has resulted in a limited re-evaluation of arms control objectives processes and institutions. Many agreements were based on East-West or NATO-Warsaw Pact divisions. Since the Warsaw Pact no longer exists and Cold War era tensions between East and West are markedly reduced several questions concerning existing arms control agreements arise. Does arms control serve the same purpose today as it did during the Cold War? What measures of effectiveness should be applied to arms control in the post-Cold War and the post-9/11 era? How does arms control help serve United States security interest in the current world order? Assuming the United States wants to continue conventional arms control in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world: where should the United States policy go? To answer these questions an examination of United States policies regarding large numbers of conventional armaments (both in necessary standing forces and those excess to a nation's requirements) stockpiles of aging and excess munitions the control and management of stockpiles of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) and existing arms control agreements and treaties must be accomplished. This paper will examine arms control history and current initiatives in order to argue that arms control is still valid in the post-Cold War era and make recommendations on where U.S. policy should go. Unconventional and strategic weapons and their respective treaties or agreements (i.e. Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Nuclear Weapons) are not considered in this review.