In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CONCLUSIONS In reviewing the history of arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament events over the last thirty years, perhaps it would be useful to attempt to draw some conclusions, or at least some lessons. Of particular interest are the issues related to what the role of disarmament policy should be, and the maintenance of arsenals of weapons of mass destruction by democratic states. Ultimately, can democratic states effectively deal with the imperative to drastically reduce nuclear weapons and restrict their role, pursuant to NPT obligations, given the extensive internal political pressures that surround such subjects? In 200I this remains to be demonstrated. The political pressures are many and, once having acquired nuclear weapons, it is difficult for democratic states to cut back the levels they have attained. Again, disarmament should not be thought of as an end in itself. Rather it should be considered a part of national security policy or, in the international sense, another means by which security can be achieved. A nation state has a multiplicity of tools available to maintain its security. It has its armed forces, its diplomatic capability, its intelligence apparatus, and its economic strength. Disarmament is a subset of national security policy. It is the achievement of security through control of arms rather than, for example, through the threat of the use of armed force, or economic pressure. Sometimes the pursuit of the solution to a national security problem through the adoption ofa certain disarmament policy or certain disarmament negotiations is appropriate . Sometimes it is not. It simply is one of the options that national security policymakers should consider when addressing a particular problem. It should not be thought of as a morally superior policy. Rather, policymakers should use those tools that are most likely to enhance national security and to bring peace and stability-that is the objective. And, in my judgment , this is as true on the international level as it is on the national level. Both the nation state and the world community should pursue policies that work; policies, whether they be peacekeeping, disarmament, economic sanctions or whatever, that are most likely to achieve international peace and security. Disarmament, as we have seen, is not a new issue. As far back as II39 the Second Lateran Council, convoked by Pope Innocent II, outlawed the crossbow, declaring it to be "hateful to God and unfit for Christians." However , at the battle of Agincourt in I4I5, the English longbow, in decimating the French knights, proved to be superior to the crossbow in killing capability because of its more rapid rate of fire. And both the crossbow and the longbow were not long afterwards eclipsed by the destructive firepower of the cannon. The Church also proscribed the rifle when it appeared on the scene, but this effort was quickly overtaken by events. Military technology continued to develop at a faster and faster pace over the centuries. As the controlled and limited warfare of the eighteenth century gave way to the levee en masse under Napoleon, armaments became increasingly sophisticated . The appearance of long-range artillery, and then the machine gun, led to a period of defense dominance which lasted until World War II and also significantly increased the level of violence in warfare. It was with these developments as a backdrop that Czar Nicholas urged the convening of the first Hague Peace Conference in I 899. That conference was followed by a second in I907. The measures adopted were largely ineffective . Dum-dum, or expanding, bullets were effectively proscribed, but the prohibitions on poison gas warfare and aerial bombardment were ignored in World War I. Recently, the Iooth anniversary of the I899 Hague Declaration was observed. It is difficult to argue that the world is more secure now than it was in I899. Future world wars now seem unlikely, but military technology still threatens humanity. Then, as now, the relevance of arms limitation measures is often under pressure from advances in military technology. Thus, there are three questions that pertain to any particular disarmament measure: Is it effective? Is it verifiable? Is it likely to remain relevant as technology develops? It could be said that the modern age of arms limitation began after World War I. Horrified by the spectacle of poison gas warfare in the trenches, the international community moved to outlaw this military technology in the I920S. The Washington Naval Treaty of I922, which never came into force because of French objections to the submarine limitations, contained a proscription on poison...

Share