Arms Race

Introduction

The arms race refers to the competitive buildup of weapons and military capabilities between two or more nations, each seeking to gain or maintain superiority over the other. It often arises from mutual distrust, fear of vulnerability, and the desire for strategic advantage. Historically, the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War exemplified how technological advancements and political rivalry can escalate tensions. Such competitions not only strain national economies but also threaten global peace and stability by increasing the likelihood of conflict and reducing opportunities for diplomatic resolution.

Meaning of Arms Race

An arms race is a sustained competition between two or more states to acquire greater military capability—by expanding forces, increasing weapons production, or advancing technology—in order to gain or prevent the loss of strategic superiority over rivals. It is typically driven by mutual fear and the security dilemma, where each side’s buildup prompts reciprocal arming by the other, creating an action–reaction cycle that can escalate tensions and risk conflict. In international relations, the term is also used more broadly for patterned, competitive increases in military expenditure and capabilities among enduring rivals, such as India–Pakistan or Greece–Turkey.wikipedia+3

Main Causes of Arms Race

Enduring rivalries and threat perception: Persistent interstate conflicts trigger reciprocal buildups; over 100 countries increased military spending in 2024 amid elevated tensions, indicating widespread action–reaction dynamics.sipri+1. After Operation Sindhoor, both India and Pakistan will enhance their military capability ensuring the continuation of arms race
Security dilemma and deterrence signaling: If one state increase their defensive capabilities, the other state gets the signal that the defensive strategy is aimed to win the next war, therefore it will further procure weapons to secure its defense in case of a war. Defensive measures are read as offensive, prompting matching responses; the global military burden rose to 2.5% of world GDP in 2024, the steepest annual rise in spending since at least 1988, reflecting intensified deterrence postures.sipri+1
Geopolitical shocks and active wars: During the impending war with China in 1962, Prime Minister Nehru wrote to American President John F Kennedy to provide military hardware to India to withstand impending Chinese attack. Ongoing conflicts accelerate procurement; Europe’s military spending rose by about 17% in 2024, with Russia’s up 38% to an estimated $149 billion and Ukraine spending 34% of GDP ($64.7b), evidencing war-driven arms accumulation.sipri+1
Power transitions and regional balancing: Rising or resurgent powers seek parity or dominance; the top five spenders (US, China, Russia, Germany, India) accounted for 60% of world spending in 2024, highlighting competitive balancing among major powers.sipri+1
Technological breakthroughs and countermeasures: New capabilities (e.g., missile defense, hypersonics, drones) spur leaps and counters; withdrawal from constraints like the (Anti Ballistic Missile)ABM Treaty and the end of the (Intermediate Range Nuclear Force) INF Treaty reopened domains for R&D and deployments, expanding arms competition space.wikipedia+1
Alliance commitments and burden-sharing goals: Obligations to deter and reassure partners lead to higher outlays; NATO-country increases contributed to the 10th consecutive global rise, with many governments committing to sustained spending hikes beyond 2024.reuters+1
Arms industry capacity and procurement cycles: Expanded budgets translate, with lags, into production surges; revenues for the top 100 defense firms reached $632b in 2023 (+4% YoY), while government spending jumped 37% from 2015–2024, indicating pipeline growth that can reinforce races.english.elpais+1
Erosion of arms control regimes: Treaty suspensions/withdrawals reduce transparency and constraints; the U.S. exit from ABM (effective June 2002) enabled national missile defense development, and INF’s termination in 2019 was followed by plans to test formerly banned systems, both intensifying competitive dynamics.acq.osd+1
Domestic politics, prestige, and economic interests: Bureaucratic and industrial incentives, plus nationalist signaling, bias toward higher spending; world military expenditure hit a record $2.718 trillion in 2024 (+9.4% YoY), with per-capita spending at $334 and government-budget shares rising to 7.1% on average, reflecting political prioritization.sipri+1
Perceived capability gaps and misperception: Beliefs in qualitative or quantitative “gaps” amplify fear of vulnerability; the United States alone spent $997b in 2024 (3.2× China’s $314b), and rapid increases by rivals signal perceived gaps that can propel matching and overmatching cycles.sipri+1

Measures to Prevent Arms Race

Bilateral nuclear limits and verification: Maintain and extend treaties like New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) that cap deployed strategic warheads at 1,550 and delivery vehicles at 700 with 18 on‑site inspections annually; extension to Feb 5, 2026 preserved verifiable ceilings that reduce quantitative racing.wikipedia+2
Restart structured US‑Russia talks and pursue trilateral risk‑reduction: With New START expiring in 2026 and no successor underway, initiating follow‑on negotiations (including transparency on non‑strategic systems and emerging tech) is essential to avoid an unconstrained race highlighted in SIPRI Yearbook 2025 assessments.sipri+1
Revive or replace collapsed regimes: Address gaps left by ABM/INF demise through new limits on intermediate‑range missiles and constraints on homeland missile defense tests/deployments to reduce action–reaction spirals in offensive/defensive systems.wikipedia+1
Export controls on sensitive tech: Strengthen and harmonize multilateral regimes—Wassenaar Arrangement and MTCR—whose Category I missile/UAV items (≥500 kg to ≥300 km) carry a presumption of denial; 42 states participate in Wassenaar and 35 in MTCR, with recent EU dual‑use list updates aligning controls in 2025.ussc+2
Transparency and reporting: Expand notifications, unique identifiers, and on‑site inspections modeled on New START databases and short‑notice checks to verify warhead counts and locations, reducing worst‑case planning and perceived “gaps”.armscontrol+1
Conventional arms control and transfer restraint: Use SIPRI Arms Transfers Database findings to target regions where major-arms flows surged 2019–2024 with embargoes, end‑use monitoring, and post‑shipment verification to dampen local arms races.sipri+1
Confidence‑building and crisis hotlines: Institutionalize military‑to‑military communications and incident‑prevention accords, especially as AI, cyber, and space accelerate decision cycles that SIPRI warns could raise miscalculation risks.sipri+1
Regional compacts and ceilings: Negotiate theater‑level caps and notifications (e.g., missile testing windows, launcher limits) among rivals to prevent rapid force swings; SIPRI underscores that regional dynamics and emerging tech make purely numerical global caps insufficient on their own.sipri+1
Budgetary guardrails and transparency: Require medium‑term defense spending frameworks and public reporting; amid record $2.7 trillion global spend in 2024 (+9.4% YoY), such guardrails can slow ad‑hoc surges that fuel competitive matching.dw+1
Industry engagement and procurement pacing: Phase procurement to avoid surge capacity lock‑in; top‑100 defense firms earned $632 billion in 2023 (+4%), signaling supply‑side momentum that policy can modulate via multiyear, level‑loaded contracts and off‑ramps tied to arms‑control milestones.army-technology+1

Conclusion

The main causes of arms races include enduring rivalry and mutual threat perception that fuel an action–reaction cycle of military buildup between competitors. Security dilemma dynamics—where one state’s defensive measures appear offensive to others—lead to reciprocal arming even without aggressive intent. Power shifts and rising challengers seeking parity or regional dominance spur accelerated procurement, as with pre–World War I naval competition and later superpower nuclear expansions. Technological breakthroughs (e.g., nuclear weapons, ICBMs, missile defense, hypersonics) create incentives to avoid falling behind, triggering new rounds of acquisition and countermeasures. Alliance commitments and external crises expand perceived obligations and threats, pushing members to increase capabilities to deter adversaries and reassure partners. Treaty erosion or withdrawal (e.g., ABM, INF) removes constraints and reopens competitive domains, encouraging renewed deployments and R&D races. Domestic drivers—bureaucratic politics, defense-industrial interests, and nationalist prestige—can bias policy toward higher spending and force structure growth beyond pure security needs. Finally, mistrust and misperception—such as beliefs in “gaps” in missiles or bombers—magnify fear of vulnerability, accelerating procurement spirals that are costly and destabilizing.wikipedia+5

Introduction

Meaning of Arms Race

​Main Causes of Arms Race

Measures to Prevent Arms Race

Conclusion

Check sources

Main Causes of Arms Race