Colin Grey (1971) describes arms race as when two or more parties (nation states), believed to be in an adversarial relationship, are increasing or improving their armament at a rapid rate, and reconstructing their respective military posture with general attention to the current, past and anticipated military and political behaviour of the other party. The general understanding of arms race, however, is said to be a gradual and substantive development, build-up, or stockpiling of armament, weapons and technological capabilities of the military to give a competitive advantage against the enemy.

The main aim and objective of any nation which is involved in arms race is to gain military supremacy over other countries in terms of better weapons, technologies, artillery and army. Arms race however, can result in better arms control, which is good for international security.

Over the years, there have been various types of arms races by many countries, such as the United States, Russia, China, Japan and North Korea to name a few. These countries purchase and accumulate arms, artillery, machines, nuclear weapons and technology because they assume that other countries are preparing for combat, probably against them or their allies.

One of the main arms races in recent times was between Russia (formerly USSR) and the US up to the 1990s. This was the period of the cold war, when the world was said to be in bipolarity. This cold war had caused heightened tension between both countries and, to some extent, the rest of the world. Both countries had spent large sums of monies during this period on the military to ensure that it was able to victoriously launch an attack and/or defend the nation State.

In hindsight, the spend could have been better used on other areas of human needs and security and to develop the human capital that would ensure better quality of life. Countries which are deeply involved in arms races, however, have also exercised good arms control, which has prevented massive death and destruction and fostered a positive effect on international security.

Interestingly, the posture of North Korea in Asia must be of concern to the wider international community, and probably a threat to their security. Their nuclear armament build-up could be seen as a defence response to the USA’s close alliance with South Korea.

The end of the cold war and disintegration of the USSR then had certainly relieved the tension between USA and Russia, and therefore provided a cooling of tempers, which expanded to the wider international environment. Certainly these two countries are now looking to foster greater alliances with other countries to build and support a coalition force against terrorist groups.

Arms race, however, may not be subjected only to a nation State. The definition should be inclusive of any groups or organisations which, out of the fear of attack, take on such activity to be competitive in any military activity and win over their attacker.

The heightened tension of arms race, however, has caused mistrust and suspicion between countries. When one sees the other stocking arms, positioning their army, and forging alliances with other countries, then uncertainty and suspicion creeps in. Similarly, other countries seeing this move will start to stockpile and enter the arms race also. This, therefore, results in a security dilemma.

John Hertz (1951) defines a security dilemma as a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening. His definition, however, may be skewed towards the advent of an arms race. However, Barry Posen (1993) cited that what one does to enhance one’s own security causes reaction that, in the end, can make one less secure. He also noted that security dilemma resonates in groups, ethnicities, religions, and cultures in which central authority has broken down. It can also be construed as a psychological security trap in which negotiation is necessary to defuse conflict. Posen also pointed out that some of the conditions for a security dilemma to exist are mistrust, fear, tension, and hostility.

In international contemporary security, the arms race has caused tension, fear and mistrust. The offensive realists would argue that states should do everything feasible to gain more power and their ultimate goal should be hegemony, because that is the best way to survival. The defence realists, however, maintain that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. What states should do (Kenneth Waltz 1979) is to gain appropriate amounts of power, because when states become too powerful the balancing act will occur through formation of coalition against that state.

The structural realists’ position, however, as put forward by John J Mearsheimer (2006), is that states go to war for reasons other than security issues. Ideological, religious, economic issues, etc, are sometimes paramount. He posited five main assumptions states compete amongst themselves for power:

1. Great powers are the main actors in world politics.

2. All states possess some offence military capabilities.

3. A State can never be certain about the intentions of another.

4. The main goal of State is survival by seeking to maintain the territorial integrity of their domestic political order.

5. States are rational actors.

He further argued that the concept of power distribution is through three systems of polarity which have given one or more countries more power over the other. These three dimensions of power are described as:

• Unipolar (Buzan, 2003): There is one great state and this may be durable and peaceful. Further analysis and understanding of unipolarity is that it is a power centre of the world with commanding influence and authority. It is also felt that in a unipolar system, this nation State has influence over international security organisations. The US was described in contemporary international security as the only unipolar State because of the fall of the Soviet Union, and there was no other State equal or even comparative in military supremacy that could challenge their military and economic influence.

• Bipolarity: A system in which two superpowers are almost equal in mainly economic, cultural and military influence. Kenneth Waltz describes the international security system during the cold war period as bipolar because the US and the Soviet Union were the only two military superpowers; comparable in cultural, economic and military influences. Being the two superpowers, a psychological imbalance was created. Interestingly, with all the military posturing between these two countries, and the heightened tension and expectation of nuclear warfare, there was no war fought between them.

• Multipolarity: Described as the distribution of power in which three or more nation states have almost equal amounts of economic, cultural or military influence. A balance in power seems the imminent result from this system. This therefore means that any of these superpowers can direct or influence the distribution of military power. Probably the pre-World War period could be described as a period in which multipolarity existed — and this was the cause for both World Wars.

Classical theorists such as Hans Morgenthau and E H Carr argue that a multipolar system is more stable than bipolarity, as great powers can gain power through their alliances that do not challenge other powers. In a bipolar system, this is not possible. This view, however, is inconsistent with the pre- and post-World War periods.

Some developed countries are now strategically positioning to shift the world power from a unipolar system, which the USA had enjoyed, to a multipolarity power system. The USA is being challenged on the world front by the rise of several nation states which are developing in their economic, cultural and military competences and capabilities. The growing influence of China, North Korea, Syria, and Russia is now creating some measure of anxiety in the international environment. China is spreading its culture and economic wealth throughout the world to include the Caribbean. It is also boasting vast markets, with goods and services, and also investments, in many countries. The approach has been subtle and seems to be aimed at forging economic alliances.

In contemporary international security, therefore, multipolarity seems to be geared towards the striking of a balance of military power between countries. It also guards against any one State being the dominant authority on decisions on how and by what means power should be exerted on any nation. The relevance of arms race, security dilemma, and the polarity in contemporary international security, therefore, is of great significance to understanding the influence, distribution and balance of power in the international security environment.

christopher.bryan1000@gmail.com