Disarmament in history and at present: theory vs practice

Without delving into medieval history, we can expect that after World War I, disarmament issues became an important object of world politics, and after World War II, they took a central place in it. The monstrous destructive power, speed and constant readiness of nuclear weapons, capable of destroying entire states in a few hours, have fundamentally transformed the dialectics of politics and war. Clausewitz’s sacramental formula: “War is (:ontimiation of the policy by other, violent means” - has now become a street with a ‘two-way movement.' These violent means are tangible, influence politics, and sometimes dictate the rules for its behavior. Hence the logic of disarmament: influencing the means of war through agreements on their limitation and elimination to reduce the likelihood of war, to reduce its destructive effects and the economic costs of an arms race. However, practice has shown that these elements of the classical ‘triad’ of disarmament do not always harmoniously complement each other, and often come in conflict with each other. Fundamental disarmament issues remain unresolved to this day or are being re-initiated as the world order changes and science and technology develop. Worse, at the moment, the collapse of the disarmament treaty system built over decades is leading to a new arms race, while there is a possibility of transferring control over their use to supercomputers. At the same time, the half-century history of disarmament negotiations has shown that, with the creation of favorable political conditions, compromises are achievable on the most complex strategic and technical issues - with the goodwill of government leaders, the support of political elites and the persistent efforts of military and civilian professionals.