Weapons and arms control

Answer

The buying and selling of weapons between states and groups; it floods conflict zones with arms, making wars longer, deadlier and harder to end.

Answer

Preventing attack by the threat of devastating retaliation — because a nuclear war would destroy both sides, states avoid direct war.

Answer

Arms control limits or reduces certain weapons through agreements; disarmament goes further, reducing or getting rid of weapons.

Answer

The spread of weapons — especially nuclear weapons — to more states or groups, which raises the risk of catastrophic war.

Answer

Efforts to stop the spread of weapons, especially nuclear weapons, to more states or groups.

Answer

Because they cause most conflict deaths — far more than large bombs or weapons of mass destruction.

Answer

The arms trade fuels and lengthens conflicts, small arms kill the most, and arms races and proliferation raise the risk of catastrophe.

Answer

Military strength and nuclear deterrence can prevent attack, as no state has directly attacked another nuclear power for fear of retaliation.

Answer

States fear disarming while rivals do not, powerful states and arms industries resist limits, and new technologies outrun old treaties.

Answer

Even partial arms control builds trust, caps arms races, reduces the deadliest weapons, and creates norms against their use.

Answer

Weapons both cause and deter conflict, so the realistic route to peace is arms control — cutting the arms trade and deadliest weapons while managing deterrence.