The idea of disarmament emerged from the realization that weapons cause tension, occasionally leading to wars. Stockpiling weapons creates an atmosphere of distrust and enmity among nations. It is asserted that the weapons, which are the source of all these problems, must be eradicated to end wars or conflicts and foster trust between the states.
Human security must be included in our concepts of national security. Threats today come not only—or even primarily—in the shape of enemy powers but also poverty, discrimination, and a lack of opportunities. These elements frequently coexist with violent conflict and can be just as disruptive as armed conflict. At its most fundamental level, human security involves defence against violence and the risk of violence. Human security, however, calls for more than just an absence; it also calls for the presence of institutions and resources that allow individuals to live in dignity, earn a living, and survive. It demands that six basic needs—including food, shelter, and healthcare—be supplied, everyone can pursue an education or other form of training or employment, and their human rights are protected.
Disarmament alone will not be enough to achieve human survival, but without serious disarmament measures, human survival efforts will almost surely fall short. A neighbourhood overrun with illegal firearms is less likely to be a safe environment for residents. Whether deployed against internal populations or external opponents, conventional weapons such as tanks, mines, cluster bombs, and fighter planes make a country much less likely to be a secure place for people. It is less conceivable that a world filled with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands of missiles with the ability to deliver them over large distances with pinpoint accuracy will be safe for its people.
However, it is also essential to consider the human and financial resources used in the design, manufacture, upkeep, and even disassembly and disposal of these weapons. This calculation does not mention the billions spent and will be required to rebuild societies torn apart by war and bloodshed. Disarmament is not just about getting rid of weapons; it is also about opening up new perspectives on security, reallocating resources, and reevaluating our sense of ourselves as countries living in a global community.
Arms control and disarmament have been seen as more dovish alternatives in the wake of bloody wars. The terms represent a spectrum of alternatives, from unilateral to multilateral efforts, frequently requiring tools for inspection and enforcement and including global disarmament. The alternatives range from partial to complete elimination of weapons, from phased reductions to immediately enforced elimination of specific weapon categories. Sometimes, "disarmament" and "arms control" are used interchangeably. The two names refer to slightly distinct concepts.
Agreements between nation-states to restrict or even eliminate specific weapons take place in a practical setting. In this framework, military might is viewed as an instrument for advancing such objectives and as a means of deterring aggression from other states. The costs of fighting a war outweigh the potential benefits as more lethal biochemical and nuclear weapons become available. The goal of arms control is not to end violent warfare or even the competitive assumptions that underpin nation-states. The arms control goals are better understood as initiatives to advance global peace and lessen the possibility of conflict. Other goals include lowering the cost of weapons and the harm that results from violent conflict.
According to Olaf Palme's Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, using scarce resources and talents for military purposes in emerging nations promotes human deprivation. It has a negative influence on economic progress. The paper on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development by Inga Thorsson explicitly links disarmament and development. All governments are feeling the pinch of limited resources. An increase in one area entails a decrease in another. Development must be viewed as an ongoing requirement for economic progress. The relationship between disarmament and security is considered in terms of mutual economic reliance.
The classic (realist school) approach to disarmament relates to efforts to reduce the likelihood of war. The basic idea is that an arms race would inevitably lead to war. Hence countries should be discouraged from pursuing the route of weapon building. The logic of armaments control or restriction follows, followed by conflict management and confidence-building techniques to lower the likelihood of war. The Indian debate has taken a different path.
The Indian framework is centred on the issue, "How do you keep peace in a system of states?" The explanation hinges on the fundamental idea that the sources of conflict must be addressed in each conflictual scenario (conflict resolution, not conflict management). This long-term view considers the social, political, economic, and other dimensions of conflict. It assumes that wars result from social, political, and economic tensions that eventually rise into armed conflict. It bases its approach on development strategies.
Therefore, it implies and demands the potential of change in the present system and adopts a revisionist viewpoint. This can be seen in a variety of fields: in the economic field, it was articulated as a demand for a new economic order; in the political field, it was reflected in support for national liberation struggles; in the social field, it was reflected in demand for social justice; and in the international context, it was reflected in support for disarmament and the linkage of disarmament to development.
To understand human behaviour and promote peace, psychologists contribute their knowledge to disarmament and survival efforts. Here are some ways psychologists can assist in this situation −
Psychologists can aid in conflict resolution by designing ways to address these issues and understanding the underlying motivations and psychological aspects contributing to conflicts. This can entail collaborating with people, communities, and organizations to enhance interpersonal abilities that can lessen the likelihood of violent conflicts, such as empathy and perspective-taking. Additionally, psychologists can train and assist organizations and individuals working to advance disarmament and peace, such as peacekeeping troops, organizations that advocate for disarmament, and humanitarian organizations.
In the aftermath of a war, psychologists can assist people who have suffered trauma. They can aid people in bettering their mental health and well-being by assisting them in processing their experiences, managing the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and developing coping mechanisms.
Psychologists can facilitate peace education by working to create initiatives that support peaceful conflict resolution and take on the psychological causes of violence.
Psychologists can act as mediators in arms control negotiations, facilitating dialogue between parties involved in contention and fostering understanding and collaboration.
Psychologists can offer mental health support to people impacted by violence, including members of the armed forces and their families, victims of terrorism and war, and refugees.
Even though armaments are the root of conflict and hostilities, nation-states are hesitant to abolish their militaries. The states are driven to increase their weapons of war from a political and economic standpoint. As a result, proposals for disarmament are being defeated. During the interwar and Cold War eras, efforts were made to reduce the number of weapons around the globe, but these efforts failed to stop the development of more advanced and lethal weapons.
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Economics
Psychology
Environmental Science
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
English