The ABM`s “compromise” in the Nixon administration was itself the result of a creative misunderstanding among proponents of the advantage and stability of arms control. While Smith and Rogers viewed ABM restrictions as preventing the widespread spread of destabilizing weapons technology, Laird and Packard saw these restrictions as necessary to prevent unlimited Soviet deployments that could not reach the United States for political reasons. We know that proponents of beneficial arms control at the Department of Defense continued to view ABM technology as an area of relative advantage for the United States because they were constantly trying to push the boundaries of ABM implementation. Although Laird and Packard were desperate for further ABM deployments by the United States, at least in the short term, in late 1969, Senate debate in the summer of 1970 suggested that Congress could fund a larger deployment of ABM if it limited itself to defending ICBM fields in the Midwest. This, in turn, sparked the interest of Laird and Packard.93 Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) refer to small arms and light firearms. The majority of victims of armed violence explicitly die from small arms and light weapons. Ongoing conflicts, supported by the illegal proliferation and diversion of small arms and light weapons, are closing the line between armed conflict and crime. International organizations are trying to limit the spread of small arms and light weapons. For those who argue that war is the result of pro-war interest groups, the main goal of arms control is disarmament. While arms control agreements often reduce the number of weapons available to states, disarmament advocates argue that the most important function of these agreements is to tame unfavorable military-industrial complexes and dismantle old attitudes and cultures of war.11 In addition to achieving antimilitarist objectives, the promotion of disarmament agreements offers the opportunity to form new coalitions in favor of the international and social justice. and at the same time resources of unnecessary military competition to pursue these peaceful programs.12 By helping to crush militarist interest groups, arms control agreements can advance the cause of peace.
Even in establishing numerical parity, the 1972 ABM Treaty contained several concessions to proponents of beneficial arms control.99 First, the United States was allowed to deploy an ABM base that Laird and Packard hoped would provide an opportunity to gain real experience in the operation of ABM technology, albeit on a small scale.100 But even this small deployment was not guaranteed: Stability weapons controllers had repeatedly argued that the United States should push the Soviets toward a zero ABM deal.101 The heart of the problem was not so much the immediate use of ABM, but rather the long-term effects of ABM research and testing. With regard to weapons of mass destruction, arms control has been adopted in areas where tensions remain high, namely: the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean peninsula. The Office of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance is responsible for deterring conflicts and improving strategic stability through instruments such as arms control treaties, other international agreements and transparency and confidence-building measures. The AVC strengthens cooperation between allies and partners to control the threat of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, their space and cyber capabilities, and conventional weapons. AVC is working tirelessly to strengthen current global arms control and transparency measures, increase government-wide support for verification activities, and maintain military transparency in Europe.
