The big idea: Weapons shape conflict — and efforts to control them shape peace. Whether fewer weapons means more peace is fiercely debated.
The key terms
- The global arms trade fuels wars.
- nuclear weapons raise the stakes to the extreme.
- arms control and disarmament try to make the world safer.
- The arms trade fuels conflict — a flood of cheap weapons makes wars longer and deadlier.
- Small arms kill the most — most conflict deaths come from small arms, not big bombs.
- Nuclear deterrence — the threat of catastrophic retaliation may prevent war between nuclear powers — or risk disaster.
- Arms control builds trust — treaties to limit and reduce weapons can lower tensions and the risk of war.
Do weapons cause war or deter it?: This is the core debate. Both views capture part of the truth.
More weapons mean more war
- The arms trade fuels conflict.
- An arms race raises the risk of catastrophe.
- So disarmament brings peace.
Weapons can deter
- Weapons, especially nuclear ones, can deter attack.
- The fear of devastating retaliation has arguably kept the peace between great powers.
- So security comes from strength, not disarmament.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Weapons are woven through every conflict, and controlling them is one of the hardest tasks in global politics — because weapons bring both danger and, some argue, deterrence.
How weapons worsen conflict
The global arms trade floods conflict zones with weapons, making wars longer, deadlier and harder to end; small arms cause most conflict deaths; and the spread (proliferation) of ever-more-destructive weapons raises the risk of catastrophic war — so weapons fuel and intensify conflict.
The case that weapons can prevent war
Realists argue that military strength and especially nuclear deterrence can prevent war: no state has attacked another nuclear power directly, because the threat of devastating retaliation makes war unthinkable — so weapons, paradoxically, may keep a fragile peace between great powers.
Case study — nuclear deterrence and its dangers: Nuclear weapons capture the whole debate.
Supporters of deterrence
- A nuclear war would destroy both sides.
- So nuclear-armed states avoid direct war altogether.
- This has arguably kept the peace between the great powers for decades.
Critics
- Deterrence is a terrifying gamble.
- It relies on every leader always being rational.
- It risks catastrophe by accident or miscalculation.
- It drives dangerous proliferation as more states seek the 'ultimate' weapon.
The lesson: Weapons can both deter and endanger. Arms control tries to capture the deterrent stability while reducing the catastrophic risk.
The key point: Weapons both fuel conflict (the arms trade, small arms, proliferation) and, some argue, deter it (nuclear deterrence). Arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament try to reduce the danger — but whether fewer weapons means more peace depends on whether weapons mostly cause war or prevent it.
Never wonder what to study next
Get a personalized daily plan based on your exam date, progress, and weak areas. We'll tell you exactly what to review each day.
Does disarmament bring peace, or does strength (deterrence) keep it? And can arms control really work when states distrust each other? Recurring debates. Weigh them.
Why arms control is hard
States fear disarming while rivals do not, so they demand verification they can trust; powerful states and arms industries resist limits; and new technologies (drones, cyber, AI weapons) outrun old treaties — so arms control is slow, fragile and often partial.
Why arms control still matters
Even partial arms control builds trust, caps dangerous arms races, reduces the number and spread of the deadliest weapons, and creates norms against their use — so it lowers the risk of catastrophe even if it cannot end conflict.
One view: disarmament brings peace
- The arms trade fuels war.
- Weapons make conflict deadlier.
Another view: strength keeps peace
- Deterrence prevents attack.
- Disarming while rivals arm invites aggression.
Two perspectives — weigh them: Strong essays judge that weapons both cause and deter conflict. So the realistic path is not total disarmament or unlimited arming but arms control — reducing the catastrophic risks and the arms trade while managing deterrence.
How weapons and arms control come up in Paper 2: A Paper 2 essay might ask whether disarmament brings peace, whether nuclear deterrence keeps the peace, or whether the arms trade should be controlled. Weigh weapons-cause-war against weapons-deter-war, then judge.
The 15-mark markband (what moves you up)
Bands 1–6
Mostly descriptive; perspectives not identified.
avoid
Bands 7–9
Clear knowledge, but perspectives identified, not explored.
7–9
Bands 10–12
Well-supported argument; perspectives explored.
10–12
Bands 13–15
Balanced, compelling; perspectives explored AND evaluated.
13–15
Discuss the view that disarmament is the best route to lasting peace.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: 1. Assuming fewer weapons automatically means peace. Consider deterrence.
2. Ignoring the arms trade and small arms. They cause most deaths.
3. No real case. Use nuclear deterrence and its dangers.
4. Listing arms-control treaties. Judge whether fewer weapons made that region safer.
5. No judgement. Conclude — usually arms control.