After The Second World War, the United Nations was established as a body for promoting and maintaining international peace and security.  In 1946, the United States proposed the Baruch Plan to impose strict international control over the nuclear fuel cycle and thus avoid a global nuclear arms race, but the Soviet Union rejected the proposal and the negotiations failed. Following President Eisenhower`s 1953 address to the United Nations General Assembly, the International Atomic Energy Agency was established to promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology and to apply protection measures against the diversion of nuclear materials for peaceful purposes to nuclear weapons. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology in countries outside the five countries that already had nuclear weapons: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China.  Although it is based on a coherent statement of the cause of war, arms control in order to disarm its critics. Many proponents of arms control for strategic stability and benefit argue that disarmament efforts could make war more likely if efforts dismantle the military capabilities necessary for deterrence.21 Others doubt that martial interest groups are actually fuelling international conflict or that military-industrial complexes appear in response to existing political differences between states.22 On the one hand, important disarmament negotiations in the interwar period could not prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, while the “long peace” of the Cold War was marked by high armament on all sides.24 On the other hand, disarmament advocates can credibly argue, That the disarmament negotiations in the interwar period never went far enough to hinder demilitarism and the arms race, and that the nuclear disarmament movement had an important role to play in regulating and ultimately ending the Uso-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War.25 Disarmament advocates argue that, in the face of such a mixed empirical record and terrible consequences, deterrence should fail. , the safest way forward for States 26 At the most abstract level, a look back at the history of the United States of Soviet and then Russian arms control compliance provides a window into the shift of geopolitical concerns and priorities, how the pendulum shifts from compliance issues related to the rivalry of the great power (the emphasis on reports in the 1980s), to focus on non-proliferation and the threats of a broader set of states (which emerged as a new theme in the 1990s), and then return to some extent to a great rivalry today. But a look at the history of U.S. compliance assessments also provides some lessons on how Moscow manages arms control, which helps to understand the challenges we face today in trying to reach the next arms control agreement. Recent arms control contracts provide for stricter conditions for enforcement of offences and verification. The latter has been a major obstacle to effective implementation, as offenders often attempt to secretly circumvent the terms of the agreements. The audit determines whether or not a nation is complying with the terms of an agreement, and it is a combination of the disclosure of that information by participants and a way to verify each other`s information to verify that information.  This often involves as much negotiation as the borders themselves and, in some cases, revision issues have led to the failure of contract negotiations (for example.
B, the revision was mentioned as a major concern by opponents of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was ultimately not ratified by the United States).   The strategic Arms Limitation (SALT) discourses between the United States and the Soviet Union in the late 1960s/early 1970s led to other accor
Comments are closed.