The Definition Of Arms Race

The Definition Of Arms Race
The Definition Of Arms Race Image link:
C O N T E N T S:


  • This might put an end to the arms race and limit the risk of nuclear war.(More…)
  • The General Assembly, recognizing that prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, would call on all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the peaceful use of outer space and to the prevention of an outer space arms race, under the terms of one of seven texts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).(More…)


  • The United States was signatory to numerous other interwar arms control measures, including a 1925 protocol to the Geneva Convention that outlawed the use of chemical and biological weapons and even the ambitious 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which at least in theory outlawed war altogether.(More…)
  • American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers.(More…)



This might put an end to the arms race and limit the risk of nuclear war. [1] The nuclear years: the arms race and arms control, 1945-70. [1] This in turn can lead to a full-blown arms race, which in turn increases threat perception and hostility on each side. [1] Relating rates of change to levels of a variable leads to a set of differential equations which are closely parallel to the arms race equations. [1] If the level of arms were below the equilibrium level, then this would result in an arms race, but one with a clear limit. [1] These hypotheses were, for the most part, ad hoc, and not part of a formal deductive structure which was to be tested as was the arms race model. [1] In the past, much emphasis has been placed on the idea that digeneans engage in a one-to-one arms race with their snail host. [1] Dreaming may be just one more addition to the biological arms race whereby different species prosper in their different ecological niches. [1] A commonly cited case of coevolution is the ” arms race ” observed between species of predator and prey. [1] Not being bound by the restrictions imposed by an arms race, some digeneans might be able to extend to new host species more easily than the literature suggests. [1]

American definition and synonyms of arms race from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Education. [2]

He discusses the nuclear arms race to illustrate how people can feel their way to better outcomes, through contract by convention, without determinacy. [1] This and other prewar arms races were widely blamed for the disaster that was the “Great War,” and the years that followed saw a worldwide explosion of interest in arms control and even complete disarmament. [3] Supporters of disarmament usually assert that arms races cause wars. [3] Countries have stockpiled huge arsenals of weapons of war to outdo their opponents through various arms races. [4] An arms race may heighten fear and hostility on the part of the countries involved, but whether this contributes to war is hard to gauge. [5] The course of an arms race has frequently exacerbated a sense of rivalry and occasionally even determined the timing of a war; but most often it has ended in a political settlement between rivals or in a decision by one side to moderate its buildup. [6] Although arms races develop momentum of their own, they are themselves the result of political tensions leading to war. [5] Some empirical studies do find that arms races are associated with an increased likelihood of war. [5] After the war, a new arms race developed among the victorious Allies, which was temporarily ended by the Washington Naval Treaty. [7] An arms race denotes a rapid, competitive increase in the quantity or quality of instruments of military or naval power by rival states in peacetime. [6] ARMS RACE AND DISARMAMENT. The term “arms race” generally refers to peacetime competitions between states for military superiority. [3] An arms race, in its original usage, is a competition between two or more states to have the best armed forces. [7]

Leads and lags in an arms race against a background of a hegemonic struggle characterized the Cold War as well, but the deterrent effect of weapons of mass destruction made “now or never” calculations much less tempting for the superpowers of the nuclear age. [6] ?and that this leads to arms races that tend to end in war. [5] The fate of navies who fell behind in this arms race was dramatically illustrated in Manila Bay during the brief 1898 Spanish-American War, when a fleet of newer American warships obliterated an older Spanish fleet. [3] The question of whether arms races contribute to the outbreak of war is also the subject of considerable debate. [5] This tense arms race lasted until 1914, when the war broke out. [7] It is not possible to say whether the arms race was itself a cause of war or merely a symptom of existing tensions. [5] Such more general arms races are often observed among countries engaged in enduring rivalries, which may sometimes appear to follow each other?s military spending levels, especially during periods of heightened tension. [5] In his seminal work Arms and Insecurity (1949), British physicist and psychologist Lewis Fry Richardson proposed a model (which he applied to the dreadnought race) of an arms race between two countries where each country sets its military expenditure or arms acquisition level in each period based on its own and its rival?s level in the previous period in an “action-reaction” pattern. [5] This would suggest that arms races are characterized more by short bursts of rapidly increasing spending during periods of high tension than by long-term stable relationships between their levels of spending. [5]

A naval buildup highlighted the arms race of World War I while the stockpiling of nuclear weapons was the method in the Cold War. [4] Until the Cold War the classic example of an arms race remained the intense Anglo-German naval competition that preceded World War I. [3]

As the arms race of the Cold War continued into the 1980s, the U.S. and Soviet Union maintained stockpiles of nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons apiece. [4] Though the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and the arms race cooled off, many nations today still stockpile nuclear weapons, and the threat of other nations developing or obtaining them is real. [4] An arms race is essentially a competition in which two or more enemy nations each try to outdo the others to produce the largest possible arsenal of weapons. [4] An arms race is a situation in which two countries or groups of countries are continually trying to get more and better weapons than each other. [8] Arms race, a pattern of competitive acquisition of military capability between two or more countries. [5] These factors combined to keep peacetime military spending low, and arms races remained rare and disarmament for the most part irrelevant. [3] Critics of such “action-reaction” models reject the idea that arms races are essentially “misunderstandings” and assert instead that arms races are often caused by attempts to gain military superiority for coercive purposes or are even caused for domestic political reasons. [3] The discussion in this article is limited to military arms races. [5] Arms races may involve a more general competitive acquisition of military capability. [5] One may also consider the gains for a country that “wins” an arms race in the sense of gaining a decisive military advantage. [5] Over the past century, the arms race metaphor has assumed a prominent place in public discussion of military affairs. [6] Examples of such arms races include India-Pakistan, Israel-Arab states, Greece-Turkey, and Armenia-Azerbaijan. [5] In 1981 Ronald Reagan was elected to the presidency amid promises that the United States would “catch up” to the Soviet Union in the arms race. [3] ?own worst enemy, accelerating the arms race with the United States rather than decelerating it, which was his underlying objective. [5] If you’re old enough to have lived through the Cold War, you probably know about one of the most famous arms races in history. [4] The U.S., having dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, was the proverbial starter’s pistol in the new Cold War and corresponding atomic/nuclear arms race. [4] The end of the Cold War by the early 1990s effectively ended that arms race. [5] Arms control and disarmament: amnesty, arms control, arms race. [2] Needless to say the theory behind arms races and disarmament is a matter of intense debate. [3] When the British finally responded, the upshot was a competition that fit an action-reaction model more closely than any other arms race. [6] General words for competitions: arms race, competition, contest. [2] The postwar arms race began as early as 1943, when the Soviet Union began its atomic program and placed agents in the West to steal U.S. atomic secrets. [5] The arms race finally began to dwindle with the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. [4] Adolf Hitler was in a rush to attack France in 1940 and the Soviet Union in 1941, partly because of the dynamics of an arms race that he had started in the 1930s. [6] The Soviet Union?s economic difficulties were certainly exacerbated by the very high proportion of the gross domestic product devoted to the arms race. [5] The first modern arms race took place when France and Russia challenged the naval superiority of Britain in the late nineteenth century. [6] Depending on the relative size of the fatigue and reaction coefficients, the arms race can either reach a stable equilibrium or spiral out of control. [5] By the 1970s both sides were looking for economic relief from over two decades of continuous arms race, and given the rough parity that finally existed, neither side thought it had much of a lead left to protect. [3] The result is a spiraling arms race in which each side can view its actions as defensive in nature. [3] Critics of this view contend that the fundamental problem is usually not the arms race itself but the political disagreements that underlie international tension. [3] Political purposes almost always drive and govern arms races. [6] The arms race that had produced the greatest anxiety among contemporaries ended in the most astonishing political settlement of the past century. [6] The most common explanation for the origins of arms races has to do with what political scientists call the “security dilemma.” [3] Typically, in popular depictions of arms races, the political calculations that start and regulate the pace of the game remain obscure. [6] This is called an arms race, and it’s occurred many times throughout history. [4] An arms race may also imply futility as the competitors spend a great deal of time and money, yet end up in the same situation as if they had never started the arms race. [7] Some, though not all, studies of India and Pakistan have found evidence of a Richardsonian arms race, but few other enduring rivalries have produced such empirical results and none consistently. [5] In this view an arms race is only a symptom, not the disease, thus arms control only becomes possible when it is no longer necessary. [3] The famous PD game is frequently applied to arms races between two countries. [5] The resulting models are similar to certain elaborations of the Richardson model: while one starts from the arms race and builds in economic allocation issues, the other starts with the allocation problem and builds in the rivalry. [5] While the Richardson model has proved extraordinarily fruitful in generating scholarly analysis of arms races, the Richardson approach has a rather poor empirical record in demonstrating the existence of actual arms races. [5] There were attempts at regulation and stopping the arms race, but both nations continued to stockpile. [4] The key question is whether the reaction terms b 1 and b 2 are significantly greater than zero–if so, an “action-reaction” or Richardsonian arms race is said to exist. [5] One example of an arms race is the “dreadnought” arms race between Germany and Britain prior to World War I. [5] This arms race is often cited as one of the causes of World War I. [5] This arms race outcome is worse for both players than if both had chosen low arms. [5] An evolutionary arms race is a system where two populations are evolving in order to continuously one-up members of the other population. [7] In technology, there are close analogues to the arms races between parasites and hosts, such as the arms race between computer virus writers and antivirus software writers, or spammers against Internet service providers and E-mail software writers. [7] Learn about some of the arms races of the twentieth century, then test your understanding with a quiz. [4] When the conflict ended in 1945, yet another arms race emerged. [4] Arms races are frequently regarded as negative occurrences in both economic and security terms. [5] There is an extensive body of theoretical and empirical literature on arms race modeling. [5] The second best outcome for each is where both choose low; if no advantage is gained, it is assumed to be cheaper and more secure to avoid the arms race. [5] ?that it encouraged a further arms race, and that it undermined established arms-control agreements and weakened the prospects for further arms-control agreements. [5] So it went on: an ecological arms race that produced surely the most impressive of all bird bills. [8] A nuclear arms race developed during the Cold War, an intense period between the Soviet Union and the United States and some other countries. [7] By 1961 it had become apparent, however, that despite this the United States did in fact retain its substantial lead in the nuclear arms race, including in the number and quality of intermediate-and long-range missiles. [3]

Though the naval arms race did poison Anglo-German relations, it was the actions of the German army, not the German navy, that ultimately produced war in 1914. [6] The naval arms race that commenced before WWI didn’t end when the war did; some of the players just changed. [4] At this point, countries like the U.S., Britain, and Japan engaged in another naval arms race to control Japanese aggression in the Pacific Ocean. [4] A third major naval arms race, involving the United States, Britain, and Japan, erupted at the end of World War I. [6] In addition to the British and Germans, contemporaneous but smaller naval arms races also broke out between Russia and the Ottoman Empire; the Ottomans and Greece; France and Italy; the United States and Japan; and Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. [7]

The United States? use of nuclear weapons to end World War II led to a determined effort by the Soviet Union to acquire those weapons, leading to a long-running nuclear arms race between the two superpowers. [5] Developments in the nuclear arms race came at a dizzying rate throughout the rest of the decade. [3] The German challenge to Britain in the early twentieth century involved the most famous naval arms race of all. [6] In 1906 Britain launched a new, more-advanced warship, HMS Dreadnought, triggering a naval arms race. [5] From 1897 to 1914, a naval arms race between the United Kingdom and Germany took place. [7]

Are we missing a good definition for arms race ? Don’t keep it to yourself. [9] Examples of “arms races” are found throughout much of American history, but the largest and most important remains the one between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, especially as it involved nuclear weapons. [3] More generically, the term “arms race” is used to describe any competition where there is no absolute goal, only the relative goal of staying ahead of the other competitors in rank or knowledge. [7]

At the most basic level, scholars agree that an arms race is an intense armaments competition between two or more rival states, which can manifest itself either qualitatively (technological advancements) or quantitatively (numerical superiority), and which may or may not result in war. [10] Arms race studies cannot use total military expenditures when one or both states are engaged in a war with countries that are not involved in the arms race. [11] While the presence of an arms race in a dyad contributes to the chances of a war breaking out, there are other factors (such as the presence of an ongoing rivalry between the states in the dyad) that also play a role. [11] When dealing with arms races involving the United States in the post-World War II era, what about United States war involvements (in particular, Korea and Vietnam)? If you are conducting an arms race study involving the United States during the time periods of those wars and use a measure based on total military expenditures, then all of the resources that the United States was devoting to the wars will be counted towards the arms race. [11] At roughly the same time the results of Wallace?s ( 1980, p. 271) study of the military expenditures of the United States and the Soviet Union “offer no support whatever to those who are convinced that the arms race results from the ineluctable nature of the political or economic system on either side. [11] The Cold War arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union has been replaced by a multipolar nuclear competition, with far more volatile dynamics. [12] For each of these races Huntington lists only a single service; for example, he classifies the Cold War arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union as only involving nuclear weapons. [11] The development of the atomic bomb and the subsequent arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union ushered in a new conflict: the Cold War. [13] Initially, only the United States possessed atomic weapons, but in 1949 the Soviet Union exploded an atomic bomb and the arms race began. [13] The current arms race between the United States and Russia betrays the same assumptions as the last one: that new weapons will be better, and that technological innovations can overcome the nuclear threat. [12]

The final question about arms races that has been explored in recent studies is one of the original focuses of this literature: Do arms races lead to war? This is obviously the most important question in the arms race literature. [11] How do we select cases to study to evaluate whether arms races lead to war? There were a large number of studies that looked at this relationship. [11] Recent studies of arms races and war embed the presence of an arms race as part of a more extensive model. [11] In recent years there has been little work on the quantitative study of arms races, whether trying to understand why the start, how they progress, or whether they end in war. [11] Rider, Findley, and Diehl ( 2011 )–discussed earlier in this article–also study the relationship between rivalries, arms races, and war. [11] If there was little consensus on whether particular dyads were engaged in an arms race, it was of course difficult to determine whether arms races led to wars. [11] Arms races are more likely if the states in the dyad are engaged in a rivalry. [11] For a pair of states engaged in an arms race net of independent of the impact of the defenses of the other side and its own defenses, the grievance of each state towards the other would have a positive impact on its own defenses (i.e., the defenses of each state would increase). [11] An arms race exists if over a three-year period the states have at least an 8% increase in military expenditures or personnel. [11] If the dynamics of an arms race (let us assume it is between just two states) are measured by total military expenditures, this implies that the competition involves all the armed services of both states. [11] Arms races are less likely to start if the states in a dyad have a high level of trade interdependence or if a state in the dyad is dependent on trade with the other state. [11] Regardless of whether a dyad is purely driven internally or whether there is a pure arms race in a dyad, there should be a high degree of correlation between (a) the defenses of both sides, and (b) within each state its defenses and its previous defenses. [11] He finds that arms races are most likely when the dyad has both a territorial issue and the states in the dyad are involved in a rivalry. [11] We have learned that arms races are most likely to start if the dyad of states engages in a militarized interstate dispute that is territorial. [11] We should not assume that both states that engage in an arms race make this decision in the same year. [11] This essential introduction to the question of whether arms races lead to war provides a detailed survey and analysis of this literature, highlights ongoing debates, and pinpoints theoretical and methodological shortcomings. [10] Since that arms race was already underway, the emphasis was on the two issues noted above: what drives arms races (internal or external forces) and whether arms races lead to war. [11] A possibly hopeful consequence of the universal recognition that the use of nuclear weapons in combat carries an inordinately high risk is that, in contrast to previous arms races, the major purpose of both nuclear superpowers is not to win a nuclear war but to avoid or prevent one. [14] A valuable review of the arms-race literature, especially concerned with the question of arms races and war. [10] Longer arms races tend to have a stabilizing influence on international politics; quantitative arms races are more likely to result in war than qualitative ones. [10] Arms races can be a cause of war, although there is a debate on how this happens. [11] Arms races: A cause or a symptom? In J. A. Vasquez (Ed.), What do we know about war? (2d ed., pp. 111-138). [11] It does not explain the relationship between arms races and war. [11] Including these cases may produce very different conclusions about the linkage between arms races and war. [11] Only 13 of 79 wars identified by the Correlates of War Project from 1816 through 1992 were preceded by an arms race. [11] Only 25 of the 174 strategic rivals identified by Thompson ( 2001 ) had an arms race before a war. [11] Locked-in rivalries (those rivalries that have experienced a large number of disputes) that experience an arms race are more likely to experience a war. [11] This was followed by a volume that compiled Richardson?s work on arms races and the causes of war (Richardson, 1960 ). [11] This is not an arms race study per se, but it does relate the arms behavior (in terms of nuclear weapons) of other countries to the United States. [11] Given that the United States army was a bit less than half the size of the Soviet army, it is hard to argue that there was arms race between the two armies. [11] This was not as popular question in the early arms race literature because of the focus–both direct and indirect–on the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. [11] His question is whether government officials viewed particular states as rivals. 10 To identify arms races Rider uses the same procedure as Gibler, Rider, and Hutchison ( 2005 ); this is discussed in the review of that piece in this article. [11] Nevertheless, arms races are more likely to occur within a rivalry than between two states that are not engaged in a rivalry. [11] If the changes in state A?s defenses were driven by State B?s defenses and vice versa, this suggests the two states were in an arms race against one another. [11] They predict the likelihood of a pair of states engaging in a militarized interstate dispute or an arms race. [11] They define an arms race as involving two rival states, as given in Thompson ( 2001 ). [11] This article will briefly review some of the salient aspects of the early studies of arms races through the end of the Cold War then recent (published from 2005 through 2016) quantitative studies of arms races will be considered. 1 Finally suggestions will be offered for where this area of study should go. [11] He relied on his study of history to identify thirteen arms races from 1840 through the Cold War. 5 And of course, instead of creating one?s own list of arms races one could use the consensus of historians to identify a number of races or even a single race for close study. [11] This is unfortunate because it is fair to say that most of the important questions involving arms races were not resolved in the empirical work that was done during the period of the Cold War. [11] For the most part, the Arms Race came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War in 1991. [15] With the end of the Cold War, interest in studying arms races declined sharply. [11] Huntington ( 1958 ) lists thirteen arms races from 1840 to the Cold War. [11] The earlier generation of arms race studies did not come to firm conclusions about whether particular dyads were engaged in an arms race or whether their increases in defenses were driven by something else (in particular by internal factors). [11] There was little consensus on whether particular dyads engaged in an arms race (as noted earlier, two sophisticated studies of the United States-Soviet dyad reached opposite conclusions). [11] At the risk of being painfully obvious, none of the members of the dyads of European NATO countries were engaged in an arms race against each other; they were allied to one another. [11] Simply looking at military expenditure patterns is a poor way to judge whether countries are engaged in an arms race against one another. [11] Given the major problems with using total military expenditures I believe the study of arms races should move in this direction. [11] As noted above when the behavioral revolution came to the study of international relations, a large number of studies on arms races were undertaken. [11] In what follows, a series of “signature studies” from the beginning of the quantitative study of arms races are discussed. [11] The early studies that were conducted included few control variables, and their central focus was on arms races. 6 This focus was not inappropriate. [11] During the time period examined there were a series of studies on the onset of arms races. [11] Indeed, through time, arms race studies became more sophisticated. [11] With the arrival of the behavioral revolution in international relations, the number of quantitative studies of arms races exploded. [11] There is a good base of knowledge to build upon, but there is not consensus on the answer to the most important questions in this literature. 14 Clearly it is necessary to move forward both with general inquiries about arms races and studies that offer insight into current situations. [11] Unfortunately the empirical studies did not all point in the same direction for a particular (potential) arms race. [11] These subjects were not part of the initial set of quantitative studies on arms races. [11] As with the other later studies of arms races these current studies are more sophisticated. [11] These arguments, incidentally, provide intellectual justification for the pursuit of an endless arms race not only with the military establishments of other nations but also within the military establishment of each of them. [14] Of course, one could argue that Huntington was not correct; that is, arms races typically involve more than one military service. [11] This extremely useful and updated primer on arms races addresses the role of technological revolutions, especially weapons of mass destruction. [10] It is fair to say that the Cold War–and the United States-Soviet arms race–stimulated a great deal of work on arms races. [11] With recent events involving the United States, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea there will be renewed interest in arms races. [11] The phrase arms race, in its original usage, is a competition between two or more parties to have the best armed forces. [9] Once that competition disappeared so did a great deal of the scholarly interest in arms races. [11] Understanding arms race onset: Rivalry, threat, and territorial competition. [11] Rider finds that if a rivalry dyad experiences at least one militarized interstate dispute in the past five years this is positively associated with the onset of an arms race. [11] There is also significant evidence that the leadership of the German navy began to size their navy to Great Britain?s in 1898, but when justifying its budget request in the British Parliament the Royal Navy did not mention the German navy until 1900. 18 These examples–admittedly all about navies–suggest that while there are arms race dyads we are better off thinking in terms of armaments targeting. [11] There is a long history of quantitative and systematic scholarship on arms races in the field of international relations. [11] There are also unresolved debates concerning the relative influence of domestic or international factors, and disagreement over whether arms races constitute an effective deterrent or actually instigate interstate violence. [10] Arms races are an abiding feature of international relations. [10] As the Arms Race heated up, it became very expensive for both countries. [15] In order to try and slow down the Arms Race, the countries agreed to reduce arms through the SALT I and SALT II agreements. [15] The belief that arms races lead to war was one of the main motivations for Richardson?s work; he felt that arms races were a primary cause of World War I. This was also the prime motivation of Huntington?s work ( 1958 ). [11] The study of arms races can be a complicated and abstruse topic, especially for nonexperts, but a number of general overviews provide insights that will benefit both the novice and the specialist. [10] As was true of the previous piece of work reviewed, this is not a “classic” arms race study. [11] This needs additional study, and the arms race dynamics study discussed next does precisely that (albeit for only one arms completion). [11] A final study of arms race onset is by Lee and Rider ( forthcoming ). [11] Rider, Findley, and Diehl ( 2011 ) cover several of the major questions about arms races. [11] The early work on arms races did not reach firm conclusions on either of the two main questions. [11] The onset of arms races was not one of the original major questions in the arms race literature. [11] In the current era without a signature arms race, the question of arms race onset has attracted more attention. [11] Words used to describe arms races and nuclear weapons are still almost exclusively those used for conventional weapons. [14] As Moll and Luebbert note in their review of arms races models (1980, p. 166): “The common failure of statistical tests to discriminate among various models indicates that there are fundamental problems with either the explanatory power of the models or the discriminating ability of the tests. [11] Arms race modeling: Causality analysis and model specification. [11] It begins by noting that through time the methodologies used to explore arms races became more sophisticated. [11] Huntington ( 1958 ) was the first well-known effort to gather information on a series of arms races and draw general conclusions as opposed to a deep dive into a particular arms race. [11] Most arms race studies–regardless of when they were published–rely on total military expenditures. [11] In the broadest sense, arms race scholars generally investigate how, why, and under what circumstances arms races develop, and with what consequences. [10] Much of the scholarship further investigates how arms races can be precluded, managed, measured, and resolved. [10] Much of the early work on arms races centered on trying to understand what drives the acquisition of armaments. [11] Huntington 1958 is essential reading for all students of arms races, and its straightforward style is particularly appealing. [10] Arms races are important phenomenon They can involve the commitment of vast amounts of resources that might otherwise be used to help societies. [11] They found no “automatic” relationship between being involved in a rivalry and an arms race (about 75% of rivalries never experience an arms race). [11] They do not have to be involved in a dispute to be coded as being involved in an arms race. [11] They use the same measure of arms race as Gibler, Rider, and Hutchison ( 2005 ). [11] Given Richardson?s focus on arms races, he did not consider whether the grievance coefficients could be negative. [11] One that was not directly addressed in most of the early literature on arms races. [11] I will only note those that are relevant to their primary hypothesis and to arms races. [11] Abu-Qarn and Abu-Bader ( 2009 ) studied the Israeli-Arab arms race. [11] An arms race is more likely if the dispute is about territory. [11] An arms race is more likely to occur after the rivalry “locks in” (i.e., after the rivalry experiences its ninth or tenth militarized interstate dispute). [11] The key concepts that they add to the onset of arms race literature (as one would expect from the title of the article) are trade interdependence and trade dependence. [11] Virtually all work on arms races treats the onset as a dyadic-level decision, which of course it is. [11] Unintended consequences: Does aid promote arms races? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69 (1), 1-27. [11] Here are all the possible meanings and translations of the word arms race. [9] It’s two players in an arms race, each looking for ways to reinforce their positions. [9] This will further exacerbate contradictions and up the ante on the Internet arms race. [9] Gibler, Rider, and Hutchison ( 2005 ) study conventional arms races and war. [11] During the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union became engaged in a nuclear arms race. [15] As far as the British are concerned, virtually all scholars of naval competitions would assert that Germany and Great Britain engaged in a naval arms race from 1898 to either 1912 or 1914. [11] The classic naval arms race between Great Britain and Germany around the turn of the 20th century was clearly not matched by one between the armies of these two countries. [11] This collection of Bull?s important writings on nuclear arms race and arms control charts his intellectual development. [10] If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce. [9] Marches, rallies, and demonstrations attracting millions of participants; numerous writings in medical and academic journals; and many conferences have had no appreciable impact on the nuclear arms race. [14] Unfortunately, this goal itself becomes a justification for pursuit of the nuclear arms race. [14] Another study by Rider ( 2013 ) also deals with the outbreak of conventional arms races. [11] Taking arms against a sea of troubles: Conventional arms races during periods of rivalry. [11] Uncertainty, salient stakes, and the causes of conventional arms races. [11]

Arms Race Facts for kids The Arms Race Facts for kids : The Missile Gap (1957) Summary and Definition: The Cold War Arms Race was heightened in the late 1950’s by the American perception that the Soviets had more powerful weapons and a larger stockpile of missiles. [16] Definition and Summary of the Arms Race Summary and Definition: The Cold War Arms Race between the U.S. and the Soviets began following the development of the Atomic Bomb. [16] The Arms Race Facts for kids : MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Summary and Definition: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was a doctrine of military strategy that started during the Cold War Arms Race. [16] Arms Race Facts – 8: During the Cold War Arms Race, these missiles could be fired from the U.S. to hit targets in Europe and Soviet Russia, and vice versa. [16] Arms Race Facts – 3: The competitive nature of the two nations led to the Cold War Arms Race in which both sides competed to develop more powerful weapons, new delivery systems and obtain more nuclear weapons. [16] Cold War Arms Race Timeline The Cold War Timeline Cold War Arms Race – President Harry Truman Video The article on the Cold War Arms Race provides detailed facts and a summary of one of the important events during his presidential term in office. [16] Arms Race Facts for kids The following fact sheet contains interesting information, history and facts on Cold War Arms Race for kids. [16] Facts about the Cold War Arms Race, the Missile Gap and MAD This article contains short, bitesize, facts about the Cold War Arms Race for kids. [16] Arms Race Facts – 5: By 1953, America was spending $50 billion on the Cold War Arms Race, whilst the USSR was spending $25 billion. [16] Arms Race Facts – 9: The launch of an orbital satellite was an inevitable stage in the Cold War Arms Race with the development of rocket technology. [16] Arms Race Facts – 6: Both the Americans and the Soviets began to develop missile technology that could put rockets in space with new possibilities for the delivery of nuclear weapons. [16] Arms Race Facts – 4: Various top secret projects and operations were introduced by both sides to monitor nuclear tests. [16] The buildups threaten to revive a Cold War-era arms race and unsettle the balance of destructive force among nations that has kept the nuclear peace for more than a half-century. [17] Anca Dragan, an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, described the possibility of such an AI arms race as “the equivalent of very cheap and easily accessible nuclear weapons.” [18] I am not fully sure an arms race would be bad, the technology for countering lethal autonomous drones would get more funding and you can end up in situations where no humans fight, so the casualties of non-nuclear war are mostly drones. [18] Having weapons that can be controlled with little input is a huge risk for superintelligent AI in the future, but developing them when few countries are good at autonomy may be better for figuring out safety controls than later when many countries are capable and it is no longer possible to stop an arms race. [18] A space arms race of sorts is underway with weapons under development or in the arsenals of China, Russia and the U.S. Space weapons include satellite jammers, lasers and high-power microwave gun systems. [19] Cold War Arms Race Timeline 1942: The Manhattan Project was established in the U.S. and its scientists led by Robert Oppenheimer developed the Atomic Bomb. [16] Arms Race Facts for kids Arms Race Facts – 1: During the Potsdam Conference Stalin was informed that the U.S. had tested the Atomic Bomb but not that they intended to use it. [16] Arms Race Facts – 2: The United States wanted to show that it was stronger, more able and more intelligent than the USSR, and vice-versa. [16] Arms Race Facts – 10: The Soviet Union launched the first artificial Earth satellite – Sputnik-1. [16] Arms Race Facts – 7: An intercontinental ballistic missile is a long-range missile capable of sub-orbital flight. [16] The fact that such a utopia doesn’t exist is not evidence of an arms race. [20] Whether international arms races can be avoided is a question of the strength of international institutions and level of trust between countries. [18] “We are witnessing the opening salvos of an arms race,” James M. Acton, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, last year told a congressional commission that assesses China?s power. [17] Seventy years after partition, nuclear-powers India and Pakistan are locked in a bitter arms race. [21] “Weaponized AI is a weapon of mass destruction and an AI arms race is likely to lead to an existential catastrophe for humanity,” said Roman Yampolskiy, a professor at the University of Louisville. [18] As the race to create increasingly powerful artificial intelligence accelerates, and as governments increasingly test AI capabilities in weapons, many AI experts worry that an equally terrifying AI arms race may already be under way. [18] AI Arms Race Principle: An arms race in lethal autonomous weapons should be avoided. [18] The AI Arms Race Principle specifically addresses lethal autonomous weapons. [18] When asked about his take on this Principle, University of Montreal professor Yoshua Bengio pointed out that he had signed the autonomous weapons open letter, which basically “says it all” about his concerns of a potential AI arms race. [18] Cold War Arms Race Timeline The critical developments of the Cold War Arms Race are detailed in the short timeline. [16] It?s actually stupid AI that they?re going to be fielding in this arms race to begin with and that?s actually quite worrying – that it?s technologies that aren?t going to be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and aren?t able to act in accordance with international humanitarian law, and will be used by despots and terrorists and hacked to behave in ways that are completely undesirable. [18] Predator/prey coevolution can lead to an evolutionary arms race. [22] Sure, for college presidents and many others weaned on the idea that the market value of players is zero, expenditures on nice training facilities can take on the appearance of an arms race. [20] A former president of a major football school referred to the expansion of stadiums among powers as an arms race — silly and senseless expenditures to one-up each other. [20] It doesn’t begin and end with senseless expenditures as the arms race metaphor would suggest. [20] Other predator/prey systems have also engaged in arms races. [22] This sort of evolutionary arms race is probably relatively common for many plant/herbivore systems. [22] “One reason that I got involved in these discussions is that there are some topics I think are very relevant today, and one of them is the arms race that?s happening amongst militaries around the world already, today. [18] In reference to an AI arms race, Cornell professor Bart Selman stated, “It should be avoided.” [18] It would make about as much sense to refer to the opening of a new Apple store overrun with customers as an arms race. [20] Dan Weld, a professor at the University of Washington, also worries that simply saying an arms race should be avoided is insufficient. [18] Specifically, an arms race is a dynamic phenomenon that happens when you?ve got multiple agents interacting. [18] Kay Firth-Butterfield, the Executive Director of, explained, “Any arms race should be avoided but particularly this one where the stakes are so high and the possibility of such weaponry, if developed, being used within domestic policing is so terrifying.” [18] Al Jazeera takes a look at the arms race between these two rivals. [21] If the Aggies had built a 200,000 seat stadium, ok, there’s the arms race. [20] Perhaps the scariest aspect of the Cold War was the nuclear arms race. [18] Rhodes closed out his trilogy on nuclear history with Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race, which is particularly strong on Reagan’s efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. [23] The history of the U.S. nuclear arms race gained added relevance this week. [23] The history of the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms race gained relevance this week following President-elect Donald Trump’s tweet about expanding the United States’ nuclear capability and his comments Friday morning about being willing to let another arms race happen if necessary. [23]

arms race, arms races- WordWeb dictionary definition Skip to definition. [24] For those of younger vintage than people like me, an “arms race” draws an association between the costly Cold War build-up of nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Soviet Union and expenditures between rival college sports teams. [20] Between 1945, when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, and 1972, when the first comprehensive nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union was signed, both nations engaged in a race to build and deploy as many nuclear weapons as possible. [23] Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens to Revive Cold War – The New York Times no longer supports Internet Explorer 9 or earlier. [17]

The General Assembly, recognizing that prevention of an outer space arms race would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, would call on all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the peaceful use of outer space and to the prevention of an outer space arms race, under the terms of one of seven texts approved today by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security). [25] The resolution reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation in developing the rule of law for space, noted the concern regarding a possible arms race, and advised that States with major space capabilities should actively contribute to the goal of preventing an arms race. [26] On 3 June Malaysia submitted a working paper on behalf of the Member States of G-21 on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. [26] Following the vote, the United States representative said that there was no arms race in outer space and, thus, no arms control problem to address. [25] Resolution 65/68 called for greater transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities and passed with a vote of 183 in favor, none against, and one abstention (the United States), while Resolution 65/44 encouraged states to continue efforts to assure the prevention of an arms race in outer space and passed with a vote of 178 in favor, none against, and two abstentions (Israel and the United States). [26] The United States representative spoke after the vote on the draft on preventing an outer space arms race, as well as on the text on promotion of transparency and confidence-building in outer space (document A/C.1/60/L.3), which had not yet been considered. [25] On August 29 Russian Federation Council speaker Valentina Matviyenko issued a statement on provisions Russia considers mandatory for future talks on reducing strategic arms saying, “Concerns further process of nuclear disarmament by all nuclear states and their step by step joining the efforts taken by Russia and the United States and prevention of an arms race in outer space.” [26] The essence of an arms race is where the sides spend more and more on building up and advancing military capabilities but feel less and less secure — and that definitely characterises this space today,” he said. [27] Japan also strongly condemned the test, declaring concern over its national security and the possibility of an arms race in space. [26] It’s all part of a secret, hidden arms race, where countries spend billions of dollars to create new armies and stockpiles of digital weapons. [27] Although this phase of the hypersonic arms race between China and the U.S. is fairly recent, the weapons themselves have existed in some form for decades. [28] It?s to keep Americans safer overall, and a huge increase in our missile defense capabilities will only create additional tension with Russia, which would increasingly believe that the build-up threatened its strategic stability with the U.S. Thus, if the U.S. actually builds an “effective, robust layered missile defense system,” as some in Congress hope, there is only one logical conclusion: an arms race. [29] In order to address this, the final document of the UN General Assembly’s Special Session on Disarmament mandated that negotiations should take place in what is now the Conference on Disarmament (CD), “in order to prevent an arms race in outer space” that are “held in accordance with the spirit of the.” [26] Expected to be acted on under cluster 3, which concerns outer space disarmament aspects, is a draft on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. [25] There was no arms race in outer space, and thus no arms control problem to address. [25] On 18 September, this code of conduct was attached to the Secretary General’s report on “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities.” (A/62/114/Add.1) In addition, the European Union is planning to submit this code of conduct to the CD. Two resolutions were passed in the UN: A/RES/62/20 on the “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” and A/RES/62/43 “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities.” [26] Two documents were adopted by the UN General Assembly: A/RES/61/58 (Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space) and A/RES/61/75 (Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities). [26] United Nations document A/RES/58/36 “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” was adopted by the First Committee of the General Assembly. [26] United Nations document A/RES/59/65 “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” was adopted by the General Assembly and distributed December 17. [26] On 7 April, China issued a statement titled “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space,” noting that the weaponization of outer space “is against the interests of all countries.” [26] On 13 September, Nigeria presented working paper CD/1965 entitled “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” to the CD on behalf of the G-21. [26] On 12 October, Sri Lanka presented draft resolution A/C.1/66/L.14 to the UNGA First Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. [26] On 4 December, the UN passed a Russian draft resolution on banning arms race in outer space was adopted during the assembly’s 69th session with 126 votes in favor and 4 votes against. [26] The draft resolution emphasized the need for verification measures to prevent an arms race and reaffirmed the CD’s role as the primary body for negotiating and drafting a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. [26] She saw no reason for international institutions to address a non-existent arms race in outer space. [25] “In international stability terms, arms races are never a positive thing: the problem is it’s incredibly hard to get out of them because they are both illogical make perfect sense,” Singer said. [27] The gradual buildup of the United States? missile defense program could lead to something much more dangerous: a new arms race with Russia. [29] Like cost shifting, the medical arms race is slowed by insurers with market power in markets with sufficient competition among hospitals. [30] On 28 October, the CD adopted draft resolution A/C.1/64/L.25 entitled “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.” [26] On 4 June, the Cuban delegation made a statement to the CD stressing that the Cuban delegation was prepared to start negotiating a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. [26] On 8 February, the CD addressed the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including a presentation of the EU draft Code of Conduct for outer space activities, which would provide guidelines to limit harmful interference, collision, or accidents in outer space. [26] The fourth Panel dealt directly with the Prevention of an arms race in outer space. [26] The Assembly would reaffirm its recognition that the legal regime applicable to outer space did not in and of itself guarantee the prevention of an arms race, and that there was a need to reinforce that regime and enhance its effectiveness. [25] The world’s most powerful nations are already at the starting blocks of a secretive and potentially deadly arms race, while regulators lag behind. [31] I was momentarily stunned by the question “I wonder whether the medical arms race will return.” [30] As hospitals continue to consolidate and integrate with other providers (e.g., as encouraged by the ACO movement), I wonder if the medical arms race will return. [30] The Group reiterated its support of preventing and arms race and stated there concern over the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems. [26] The arms race doesn’t just take the form of fancy new equipment, but fancy new facilities. [30] This medical arms race story parallels the cost shifting one I’ve told before. [30] If Congress expands the system, it will increase the odds of an arms race and decrease the chances of future nuclear arms reductions. [29]

As nations race to build their digital armies they also need to arm them. [27]


The United States was signatory to numerous other interwar arms control measures, including a 1925 protocol to the Geneva Convention that outlawed the use of chemical and biological weapons and even the ambitious 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which at least in theory outlawed war altogether. [3] Detailed, heavily illustrated information on arms control and nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. [3] Arms control was now a virtual Cold War obsession, with the world’s attention focused on each dramatic new “summit” between Soviet and American leaders. [3] The new qualitative improvements embodied in the last American arms spurt of the Cold War made Soviet military leaders nervous and helps explain why they were willing in the mid-1980s to accept the new ideas promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev in hopes of raising the technological level of Soviet society. [6]

Many onlookers, and some participants, have claimed that the likelihood of war increases as the accumulation of arms proceeds apace. [6] The arms competition between the United States and the Soviet Union did not fit an action-reaction model very well. [6] The first major incidence of successful arms control in American history, this agreement remains among the most important, as it eventually led to a sturdy Canadian-American peace and what was at the beginning of the twenty-first century the longest undefended border in the world. [3] Even though the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the latter, unilateral and voluntary cuts by both sides threatened to make future arms control irrelevant. [3] Burns, Richard Dean, ed. Encyclopedia of Arms Control and Disarmament. 3 vols. [3] Even successful arms control sometimes just provided an inadvertent spur to technological development, such as the diversion of funds from the battleships restricted at the 1921-1922 Washington Naval Conference to newer vessels unrestricted by treaty, such as submarines and aircraft carriers. [3] Historical debates over the nature and desirability of arms control similarly vary. [3] Meaningful arms control now appeared to be finally becoming possible just as it was no longer necessary. [3] Efforts to control or limit such competitions by mutual agreement are variously referred to as “arms control,” “arms limitation,” “arms reduction,” or “disarmament.” [3] In a revival of the diplomacy “linkages” that were made famous by Henry Kissinger during the Nixon years, the administration of President Ronald Reagan announces that further progress on arms talks will be linked to a reduction of Soviet oppression in Poland. [6] Each country?s most-preferred outcome is assumed to be where they choose high arms and their rivals low, gaining a clear military advantage. [5] Work proceeded on the more comprehensive Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START), but before they could be completed, to the surprise of just about everyone, in November 1989 the sudden end of the Cold War was announced to the world by East and West Germans dancing together on the Berlin Wall. [3] It is assumed that each country has a choice between a high or low level of arms. [5]

On land, warring nations also built as many other weapons and war tools as possible, but they were not as significant as the naval race. [4] The Korean and Vietnam Wars, along with other conflicts, fueled this race. [4]

When from the mid-1960s the Soviets undertook the most massive peacetime military buildup in history, the United States chose to disengage somewhat from the race. [6] It is common for a major race to be initiated by a state interested in changing the political status quo. [6] The U.S. started its own space program in response, furthering the race. [4]

After the United States did greatly increase its nuclear and conventional arms during the Korean War, the Soviet leadership for its own domestic reasons made only a partial response. [6] In this time period the presence of an arms buildup increases the chances of war. [11] Arms and insecurity: A mathematical model of the causes and origins of war. [11] Studies in this group try to account for the initiation of arms competitions between states. [11] All the studies but Kroenig?s find that arms competitions do occur between states. [11] Does this make sense? It is not as if there is a meeting between the two states and they reach an agreement to engage in an arms competition. [11] Post World War II, this was a very important question for the obvious reason that an arms competition between the superpowers that ended in war might result in a nuclear exchange and the killing of millions and millions of people. [11] In addition the studies of Collier and Hoeffler ( 2007 ), Goldsmith ( 2007 ), and Abu-Qarn and Abu-Bader ( 2009 ) all find–albeit in very different ways–that there can be arms competitions at a regional level. [11] One other aspect of the early studies of arms races–regardless of which of the two main themes was being investigated–was the fact that most were monocausal. [11] Arms racing in “space”: Spatial modelling of military spending around the world. [11] “The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.” [12] Alliances, arms buildups and recurrent conflict: Testing a steps-to-war model. [11] They both find that there can be regional aspects to arms competitions. [11] Jordan was usually found to be uninvolved in an arms competition with Israel. [11] Current events also suggest that there will be arms competitions in the near future. [11]

In fact if the states are involved in a mutual arms buildup, this increases the risk of war by about 180%. [11] The presence of a mutual arms buildup and a rivalry also increases the chances of war. [11] She finds–as they do–that a mutual arms buildup in the pre-Cold War era is likely to lead to an escalation of a militarized interstate dispute (or any dispute occurring over the following five years) to war. [11] In the post-Cold War period mutual arms buildups have a positive impact on the chances of war; that is, the post-Cold War period looks a lot like the pre-Cold War period. [11] For the Cold War period, mutual arms buildups do not increase the chances of war. [11]

The focus is on the basic approach used in each study, the time period examined, the measure of armaments/arms race, and the primary results. [11] Less than a decade after President Barack Obama called for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the nine countries that possess them are engaged in a new nuclear-arms race. [12]

If the expenditures of both sides were above average in the current year and increasing over the past six years, then a mutual arms buildup is coded. [11] Like Colaresi and Thompson, Senese and Vasquez uses Horn?s ( 1987 ) measure of mutual arms buildups that was just discussed. [11]

Nuclear arguments: Understanding the strategic nuclear arms and arms control debates. [11] Examined in this paper are some psychological aspects of the exercise of power in the anarchic and dangerous international environment with special reference to pursuit of the nuclear arms competition. [14] This paper examines a psychological feature of national leaders that contributes to their resistance to public pressure for nuclear disarmament and is probably the chief psychological instigator of the nuclear arms race—the will to power. [14]

They code mutual military buildups using Horn?s ( 1987 ) definition. [11]

American officials largely blame the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, saying his intransigence has stymied efforts to build on a 2010 arms control treaty and further shrink the arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers. [17] Early this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group in Cambridge, Mass., that backs arms control, published a report on the intensifying launch-on-warning debate. [17] For a president who came to office more than seven years ago talking about eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons, it was an admission that an American policy intended to reduce the centrality of atomic arms might contribute to a second nuclear age. [17] On May 26, 1972, President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, which called for the first reductions in the number of nuclear weapons. [23] Mark Gubrud, a nuclear weapons expert at the University of North Carolina, has lobbied for the negotiation of a global flight ban on the testing of hypersonic arms. [17] At this month?s summit meeting, Mr. Obama blamed Mr. Putin?s return to the Russian presidency in 2012 for preventing further arms reductions, saying the Kremlin was “emphasizing military might over development.” [17] When asked if warhead miniaturization and similar improvements could undermine his record of progress on arms control, he replied: “It?s a legitimate question. [17] Advocates of arms control say their field needs reinvention. [17]

The Big 12 Commissioner, Bob Bowlsby, referred to it in his much discussed comments on the state of the NCAA. College presidents tag expenditures on athletic facilities as part of this race. [20] Whose fault is it if there is a race? I?m worried that both participants will point a finger at the other and say, “Hey, I?m not racing! Let?s not have a race, but I?m going to make my weapons more accurate and we can avoid a race if you just relax.? [18] Unlike nuclear weapons, this new class of WMD can potentially target by traits like race or even by what people have liked on social media. [18]

While that fulfills the president?s commitment to rely less on atomic weapons, it may prompt adversaries who cannot match the technology to depend more on nuclear arms. [17] Mr. Perry, the former defense secretary, argued that the diminished nuclear arms and the nonnuclear weapons that Mr. Obama is developing could make the unthinkable more likely. [17] For two decades, the main nuclear powers have observed a shaky global ban on testing, a central pillar of nuclear arms control. [17] As part of the modernization process, it is also planning five classes of improved nuclear arms and associated delivery vehicles that, as a family, are shifting the American arsenal in the direction of small, stealthy and precise. [17]

RANKED SELECTED SOURCES(31 source documents arranged by frequency of occurrence in the above report)

1. (121) To Arms, To Arms: What Do We Know About Arms Races? – Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

2. (35) Arms race |

3. (28) Arms Race and Disarmament |

4. (20) Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) Treaty | Treaties & Regimes | NTI

5. (20) Arms Race – HISTORY

6. (18) Arms Race: Cold War History for Kids ***

7. (18) Is an AI Arms Race Inevitable? – Future of Life Institute

8. (17) What is an Arms Race? – Definition, Cold War & WW1 |

9. (14) Race for Latest Class of Nuclear Arms Threatens to Revive Cold War – The New York Times

10. (12) Arms Races – International Relations – Oxford Bibliographies

11. (11) ARMS RACE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

12. (10) Arms race – Wikipedia

13. (8) NCAA “Arms Race” Metaphor Gets The Economics Backwards

14. (7) The Nuclear Arms Race and the Psychology of Power – The Medical Implications of Nuclear War – NCBI Bookshelf


16. (6) What does arms race mean?

17. (5) What’s the arms race? A short history

18. (5) The medical arms race | The Incidental Economist

19. (4) The Growing Dangers of the New Nuclear-Arms Race | The New Yorker

20. (4) The Cold War for Kids: Arms Race

21. (4) Inside the secret digital arms race: Facing the threat of a global cyberwar – TechRepublic

22. (3) arms race (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

23. (3) The arms race

24. (3) The back door to a new arms race

25. (2) Nuclear Arms Race | AMNH

26. (2) Nuclear neighbours: The India-Pakistan arms race | India | Al Jazeera

27. (2) Arms race definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

28. (1) Space arms race as Russia, China emerge as ‘rapidly growing threats’ to US

29. (1) arms race, arms races- WordWeb dictionary definition

30. (1) Hypersonic Weapons Arm Race – Business Insider

31. (1) The New Arms Race: Killer Robots Mark Revolution in Warfare | Time