The problem of disarmament. The problem of disarmament and the preservation of peace on earth International cooperation for peace Solving global security problems Program objectives Distribution. The problem of peace and disarmament table

The problem of disarmament

Remark 1

One of the most important problems in the history of mankind is the problem of preventing military disasters and conflicts. The military-industrial complexes formed today in many countries spend huge amounts of money on the production of new types of weapons. The progress that has been made in the military sphere contributes to the growth of global problems and threatens the security of countries.

One of the global problems of today, directly affecting the survival of human civilization, is disarmament. Disarmament is understood as a system of measures aimed at stopping the arms race, reducing, limiting and eliminating weapons of mass destruction of people. The problem of disarmament is far from unambiguous, because it is connected with the possible death of civilization.

The arms race and its real danger are assessed by the following circumstances:

1. The huge scale of progress in military technology, the emergence of fundamentally new weapon systems. The line between weapons for whom it is intended is erased;
2. Political control over the development of nuclear missile weapons is becoming more difficult;
3. The line between nuclear and conventional war is blurred as a result of progress in the creation of modern means of destruction;
4. The interests of the people working in the military-industrial complex are in the defense of the arms race;
5. The production of weapons provides the geopolitical interests of states, so the problem is faced with their contradictions.

Ready-made works on a similar topic

An arms race is inexpedient and dangerous for all mankind.

This is evidenced by the following facts:

1. During the $20th century, global military spending increased by more than $30$ times;
2. Military expenditures between the world wars amounted to $22 billion annually, today costs are estimated at $1 trillion. dollars;
3. According to the UN, $100 million people are employed in the military-production sphere, and the number of existing armies reaches $40 million;
4. Up to $500 thousand men are employed in the creation of new weapons and military research;
5. The annual world labor costs associated with various types of military activities amount to $100 million man-years;
6. Funds going into armaments in just one year would be enough to irrigate $150 million hectares of land, the use of which could feed $1 billion people. These funds would be enough to build $100 million apartments for $500 million people.

Remark 2

Not "extra" resources are used for the arms race, but a significant part of the world's resources needed for the development of countries. A strange and incomprehensible phenomenon is the arms race for the countries of the "third world", whose role in world production is only $20%, and the population is $80% of the entire population of the planet. A huge amount of resources is diverted to military purposes, which leads to an aggravation of economic and social problems, and reduces the standard of living of the population. It is quite clear that disarmament is one of the global problems requiring the participation of the entire world community.

The problem of keeping the peace

A modern large-scale war using weapons of mass destruction can destroy not only countries, but entire continents. It can lead to an ecological catastrophe that will become irreversible. This world problem has long been under the number $1$. Its sharpness has somewhat decreased in our time, but it still remains very relevant.

The problem arose as a result of the following reasons:

1. The appearance of weapons of mass destruction at the end of the $XX$ century and its rapid spread around the planet;
2. The stocks of modern weapons in the world, accumulated by the leading countries, are capable of destroying the entire population of the Earth several times;
3. Significant and constant growth in military spending;
4. The arms trade has taken on an unprecedented scale;
5. The possibility of the emergence of interstate conflicts due to the aggravation of energy, raw materials, territorial and other problems;
6. Socio-economic gap between highly developed and developing countries.

Experts suggest the following ways to solve this problem:

1. The approach to the problem should be comprehensive, with the involvement of an increasing number of countries in treaties on the limitation or destruction of weapons;
2. Conversion of the military-industrial complex;
3. Strict international control over weapons of mass destruction and their non-proliferation around the planet;
4. Resolving interstate conflicts through diplomacy;
5. Solving the food problem.

The problem of terrorism

Remark 3

Modern socio-political crises, contradictions and conflicts are a consequence of globalization, and terrorism has become a way to resolve them. Terrorism appeared as a global problem at the end of the $19th century. It has turned into a huge force of intimidation and destruction in the irreconcilable antagonism of different worlds, cultures, ideologies, religions, worldviews. The problem of terrorism has become the most dangerous, acute, difficult to predict problem that threatens all modern humanity.

The concept of "terrorism" has different meanings, so it is rather difficult to define it. The term does not have a clear semantic meaning, because society today is faced with many of its types. These can be kidnappings for the purpose of their subsequent ransom, politically motivated murders, hijackings, blackmail, acts of violence against property and the interests of citizens. There are many forms of terrorism, so they can be classified according to the subjects of terrorist activity and their focus on results.

Domestic terrorism. This may be the activity of not only terrorist groups, but also lone terrorists. Their actions are aimed at achieving political goals within one state.

Violence can come in 2 forms:

1. It can be direct and is expressed in the direct use of force, for example, war, rebellion;
2. May be indirect or covert violence. This form does not involve the direct use of force and only means the threat of its use.

Usually, state terror they use unstable regimes, where the level of legitimacy of power is low, and they cannot maintain the stability of the system by economic and political methods. Using the massacres of people, the terrorists are counting on the panic of the population. To sow fear among the population, which for them is not an end in itself, but only a means to achieve certain political goals.

Political terrorism suggests terror for political purposes. The objects of action, as a rule, are large masses of defenseless people. Ideal targets for political terror are hospitals, maternity hospitals, schools, kindergartens, residential buildings. The objects of influence in political terror are not the people themselves, but the political situation, which the terrorists are trying to change in the direction they need. Political terror initially involves human casualties. Political terrorism and criminality have merged, interact and support each other. Forms and methods are the same, although the goals and motives may be different.

Having gone beyond the borders of one country, state terrorism acquires the character international terrorism. It causes enormous material damage, shattering the state and political foundations, destroying cultural monuments, undermining relations between countries. International terrorism has its own varieties - it can be transnational and international criminal terrorism.

Transnational terrorism may be represented by the actions of non-state terrorist organizations in other countries. They do not aim to change international relations.

International criminal terrorism manifested in the activities of international organized crime. Their actions are directed against rival criminal organizations in other countries.

Remark 4

Thus, terrorism in modern conditions is a danger on a global scale. It has become a threat to the political, economic, social institutions of the state, human rights and freedoms. Today there is a real threat of nuclear terrorism, terrorism with the use of poisonous substances, information terrorism.

2
1. Introduction
The global problem of disarmament and the conversion of military production is important not only for the world economy, but for the whole world as a whole. For humanity, the solution of this problem should play a greater role than the solution of all other problems. Since war is such a phenomenon in the life of society that can decide its fate. Military actions on the territory of any country can lead to a shortage of food, a shortage of fuel, energy and raw materials, and a violation of the natural ecosystem of this state will occur.
That is, the problems of disarmament and conversion can be sources of other global problems. This is what makes her decision so important.
I decided to choose this essay topic because I was interested to learn how this global problem is being solved, on which the lives of many people, including my own, depend. In the history of mankind there were such moments when its fate was on the verge of death. The reason for this was the large number of weapons that the states had accumulated. And today, many people walk the earth, only because they began to fight this problem in time. Although those days of terrible conflicts are over, the threat is still real. Weapons of mass destruction are still in service with some countries of the world. In order that it would never be used, many scientists, specialists, economists are trying to solve this problem. The basis of the theoretical material of this essay includes the work of some of them. In the aggregate, it is necessary to find a common point of view regarding the solution of this problem.
To do this, you need to study the history of the global problem and consider those moments when this problem became a real threat to the world. Next, you should find out the reasons why this problem was formed. After that, it is necessary to analyze the measures that were taken to solve this problem, identify their advantages and disadvantages, and then consider the prospects expected from solving or not solving this problem.
Throughout the course of this work, it is necessary to monitor the economies of those countries that were involved in this problem.
This is necessary in order to reflect all the negative consequences for the economy caused by the presence of this problem or its incorrect solution. The correct solution of the problem has a beneficial effect on the economy of the state. In addition, the solution to the problem of disarmament and the conversion of military production has a beneficial effect on the world economy, since the absence of wars reduces the likelihood of possible crises.
3
2. Historical origins of the problem
At the dawn of the formation of civilization, the first primitive economy appeared. From her point of view, all states were divided into those who had enough resources (capable of living on self-sufficiency) and those who had a shortage of some resources or their complete absence. To overcome this deficit and the state had two options:
1. Purchase the necessary resource or ensure its exchange for any product.
2. Force method of solving the problem. Forcible seizure of a given resource or the territory of its extraction.
In those days, trade was poorly developed. It was limited to land and water routes, but even their use was dangerous for the merchants themselves (climatic and geographical factors, robberies, etc.). In addition, very few countries were involved in international trade relations, which proved the ineffectiveness of the first method in solving the problems of lack of resources. The use of the second method was more beneficial for some states. Firstly, it was possible to provide oneself with the necessary amount of the resource without excessive economic costs by capturing the territory where it is mined; , the conquered territories were usually subject to taxes (tribute, indemnity, etc.), which also enriched the treasury of the state.
Thus, the formation of a unified doctrine of development began - the economic development of the state can be realized only in cases of capturing additional territory with the further use of its resources. In order to implement this doctrine, one main factor is necessary - a strong army.
For many centuries, states have placed high hopes on their troops. History shows that having a strong and well-equipped army allows a small country to grow into a large empire.
A large amount of financial resources and human resources were spent on supplying the armed forces. With the development of achievements in science, new weapons began to appear, which made it possible to increase the effectiveness of warfare. These scientific developments helped not only to improve the quality of the campaigns of conquest, but in some cases contributed to a radical change in the course of the war. As a result, over the centuries, scientists have developed the latest types of weapons, which gradually became more powerful, more efficient and more deadly.

4
This continued until the middle of the 19th century, when another war swept the world. In 1853, the Russian Empire once again launched military operations against the Ottoman Empire, the company's goal was to gain dominance in the Black Sea and over some territories of the Middle East. At first, the war turned in favor of Russia, but after the entry into hostilities of England, France and the Kingdom of Sardinia, the situation changed. The English landing in the Crimea forced the Russian military command to take decisive steps to defend the main Black Sea port, Sevastopol. Until the end of the war, the allied forces tried to capture this port and for this they used various means of destruction, which at that time were known to military science. Russian sailors and soldiers sitting in the bastions were fired upon with numerous explosive and fragmentation shells, hoping to inflict maximum casualties. The terrible and bloody defense of Sevastopol, which proved the backwardness of Russia's military technology, forced her in 1856 to sign the Peace of Paris. However, the results of the war horrified not only the Russian Empire, but all participating countries. The huge number of dead, wounded, crippled and disabled made the governments of all civilized countries of the world think about a radical revision of the doctrine of warfare. For the first time, an international conference was created, the main task of which was to establish the rules of warfare, the rules for the treatment of prisoners of war, a ban on the further use of certain types of weapons, and more. Of course, the problems that were solved at that conference were not of a global nature, but the main thing is that the world finally saw all the terrible consequences of the war and decided to fight them in agreement with all countries.
Several decades have passed since the end of the Crimean War, during which time several military conflicts have passed, which had little resonance in the world community. But the First World War came. This was the war with the largest amount of human resources used in the history of mankind (at that time in history). To suppress numerous armies, it was necessary to use the latest models of weapons, which were supposed to destroy the enemy in large quantities and at the same time must conclude the norms of international agreement, and such weapons were created and successfully used. Their effectiveness is evidenced by huge human (10-12 million people killed, 20 million injured), and economic losses.
This war proved to humanity that it will certainly slide into self-destruction.

5
In order to prevent such catastrophes in the future, an international organization was created - the League of Nations (1919). Its main function was to maintain peace and order in Europe, on the basis of a joint discussion of problems between countries belonging to the League of Nations. In the same year, the Versailles Conference was held, following its results, it was possible to establish the fate of the countries that lost the war, the further world order in Europe, the distribution of roles assigned to developed capitalist countries to maintain further order, the limitation of the armed forces (for countries that lost the war), as well as the prohibition for the use of certain types of weapons.
These include flamethrowers, chemical weapons, some types of mines, heavy artillery, and more. It seems that peace and order should finally come, because now a separate organization (the League of Nations) stands guard over the world, which was supposed to prevent bloodshed, solving problems exclusively by legal means, but this did not happen.
The League of Nations showed its inconsistency in solving international problems during the development of fascist Germany. After the Nazis came to power (January 30, 1933), Hitler proclaimed the course of preparing the country for a new war. However, Germany had a number of restrictions that prevented her from implementing these plans, but from 1933 to 1935 all these restrictions were lifted. Restrictions on the number of troops and restrictions on the production of heavy weapons were abolished, conscription was introduced, and the Rhine demilitarized zone was invaded. The League of Nations made no serious effort to stop these violations of the restrictions created by the Treaty of Versailles. Further, the world situation worsened even more. From 1936 to 1939, Austria was forcibly annexed to Germany (March 1938), the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia was annexed (September 1938), support (financial and military) was provided for the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). ). It has long been clear to the world community that the seizure of the industrial regions of Europe and the acquisition of new allies is part of the preparation for a new world war, but the necessary measures that could stop this process were still not taken. As a result of this inaction, the Second World War began. It was the war with the highest loss of life in history. And all these victims could have been avoided. The League of Nations ceased to exist during the Second World War. Instead, after the war, the UN was created (October 24, 1945 - the entry into force of the UN Charter). However, a new stage of international relations was already beginning.
6
3. Formation of the problem and its consequences
A few years after the end of World War II, there was a possibility of a new armed conflict between the US and the USSR. The contradiction of the socio-political structures of both states resulted in the "cold war". The USSR and the USA understood that the growing confrontation would definitely develop into hostilities, and therefore they sought to build up their weapons in order to provide a worthy rebuff in the event of an enemy attack. It was planned to use the latest weapons, including nuclear weapons, as weapons. The presence of atomic and hydrogen bombs was supposed to play the role of a method of psychological influence on the enemy (“atomic diplomacy”), the use of weapons of mass destruction was envisaged only as a last resort. Therefore, during the Korean War (1950-1953), the USSR, which supported the socialist north, and the United States, which supported the democratic south, did not seek to use nuclear weapons to change the course of the war, although both countries had such an opportunity. However, a few years later, the moment came when the nuclear potential of both superpowers was put on full alert. In April 1961, the American landing, with the support of the fleet and air force, tried to overthrow the socialist regime of F. Castro in Cuba, but the attempt failed. Further, Cuba asked for help from the USSR, and such assistance was provided. In 1962, the USSR deployed nuclear weapons on Liberty Island. The United States faced a real threat of attack from an ideological adversary. In this regard, the United States delivered an ultimatum to the USSR, aiming at it all its nuclear potential. The USSR did the same. Within a few days, the fate of the whole world was being decided. It is Mira, because if 10-12 million people died in the First World War, about 55 million people died in the Second, then all of humanity should have died in the Third World War. According to the researchers, if both superpowers used their entire nuclear arsenal, the consequences would be an ecological catastrophe and the subsequent "nuclear winter" that would last on Earth for many years. Such an outcome did not suit the leaders of the United States and the USSR, so the crisis that had begun (“the Caribbean crisis”) ended successfully. Over the following years, the threat of a new world war began to gradually subside, but it was still real, just as the death of mankind was real. The presence of a huge amount of weapons from the superpowers has become a global problem for mankind. Moreover, this global problem has gradually developed into internal economic problems of the owners of weapons themselves.

7
3.1. Armament problems in the USSR
The USSR was faced with the dual task of arming, firstly, it needed to arm itself, and, secondly, it needed to arm its allies, since for the most part they did not have the ability to produce weapons. These were most of the countries of Eastern Europe included in the Warsaw Treaty Organization (established in May 1955), as well as the countries of Asia and Africa. In addition, the USSR was a participant in the arms race, and it had to respond to every new US military-technical innovation with its own. Thus, huge funds had to be spent on armaments and research in this area.
From a military point of view, all these means were justified. For each new type of weapon created in the USA, the USSR responded with its analogue and other development. At the same time, in terms of quality and efficiency, they were not inferior to American ones and even in most cases surpassed them. In the USSR, types of military equipment were created that were many years ahead of their time.
But from an economic point of view, it was unprofitable. The fact is that most of the types of weapons created by Soviet scientists remained in the drawings and projects, many of which are still stored in the archives of the domestic military-industrial complex. The funds were spent on research of unrealized projects. Even with weapons already created, there was a large amount of expense. Additional funds had to be allocated for the maintenance, storage and maintenance of each additional unit of military equipment. And there were many such additional units, since they were produced based on a future war. In addition, the produced weapons were distributed practically free of charge to friendly countries, without bringing any economic profit, except for the weapons that were exported.
In social terms, the growth of armaments had a favorable result. The construction of new military facilities (ports, airfields, etc.), work at military facilities and enterprises of the defense complex provided jobs for a large number of people. In addition, many military enterprises were engaged in the production of civilian products. But all this brought benefits to a greater extent to the citizens themselves and to a lesser extent to the state. Because he had to spend money on the construction of facilities that in themselves did not bring economic profit, with the exception of military-industrial enterprises.
In the scientific sphere, the growth of weapons has an ambiguous character. On the one hand, the demand for the latest types of weapons is an incentive for science. In this case, speech
8
is about science in relation to the military sphere of production. It has already been said about the merits of Soviet military technologies and their superiority over American ones, and the main merit in this is the design engineers of the Soviet military-industrial complex. But on the other hand, there is no connection between the number of armed forces and the state of science in a given country as such. Everything depends on the financing of scientific and educational activities in the country. In the 1950s, when, after the 20th Congress of the CPSU, followed by the debunking of the personality cult of Stalin, the USSR began to take the initiative to regulate foreign policy, the army was reduced by 2 million people, reforms began within the country, it was proposed to organize a meeting of the heads of both superpowers.
It was this period that was marked by an increase in funding for Soviet science. During the 1950s and 1960s, government spending on science increased 12 times in the USSR, the number of scientific workers increased 6 times and accounted for a fourth of all scientists in the world. In the 60s, Norbert Wiener (the founder of cybernetics) came to the Soviet Union, he got acquainted with the achievements of Soviet scientists in the field of creating electronic computers. Returning to the United States, he said that if the government did not take serious measures, then by the 70s the USSR would overtake the United States in the field of information technology. But as it turned out later, no special measures needed to be taken. By the 70s, Soviet research institutes stopped researching their own developments, and simply began to copy American technologies. This was followed by the complete lag of the USSR in this field of science. This lag affected the development of military science. To understand what exactly happened, consider a few examples:
Example 1. In the late 70s and early 80s, the latest American fighters ran into a problem. They could not fly for long at extreme altitudes. And this was due to the fact that the on-board computer was completely based on microcircuits that were frozen from low temperatures at high altitudes. The Americans began to install heating, but as a result, perspiration began to appear on the microcircuits and, as a result, moisture began to accumulate, which also negatively affected the operation of the microcircuits. The most interesting thing is that Soviet pilots did not have such problems, and they could fly at high altitudes for a long time. A few years later, one of the Soviet designers clarified the situation. It turns out that the latest Soviet fighters of that time were equipped with on-board computers that worked on the tube principle. The tube principle was used at the heart of the first computers in the early 60s. Soviet science had not yet developed to microcircuits, so old technologies were used everywhere, which, paradoxically, improved the superiority of Soviet fighters over the latest Western technologies.
9
Example 2: In October 1972, a new Arab-Israeli war began (the "two-week war"). Several countries in the Middle East created an anti-Israeli coalition whose goal was to capture Israel and then transfer part of its territory to Palestine. The USSR was interested in the victory of the coalition, so it provided the countries with the latest Soviet tanks at that time.
By the way, the number of tanks used in that war was almost equal to the same number of tanks used on the Kursk Bulge.
The first week of the war was successful for the Arab states, the Israeli troops were defeated and retreated. But at the beginning of the second week, the situation changed radically. Israel had new anti-tank shells that themselves flew to the target, turning it into a pile of metal. With the superiority in tank forces, the Arab military could not do anything against shells fired from a hand grenade launcher. Soviet tanks were helpless, they could not answer the science of that time.
As already mentioned, science does not depend on the size of the armed forces, but it is directly related to their quality.

3.2. Armament problems in the USA
The United States had the same weapons problems as the USSR, but there were also significant differences that should be mentioned.
For example, they had no problem financing their allies in the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO, formed in 1949). The allies were the developed countries of Western Europe, whose defense complex was sufficiently developed, and they could independently produce and use weapons and military equipment without the help of the United States.
There were also problems in acquiring their own weapons. In the United States, several firms were engaged in the country's defense order, they assumed the costs of design, construction and research, and in the future they tried to win the competitive selection of the US government for serial supply of weapons. This is where a number of technical lags in American military equipment come from. The fact is that arms suppliers did not strive to create high-quality military equipment, the main thing for them was that it could win the competition and at the same time cost a lot. From here, weapons samples appeared that had low efficiency.

10
Many examples can be given here. This is the F-15 fighter, which lags behind the Su and MiGs in many respects, here is the M-16 rifle, the handling of which is more difficult, unlike the AKA-47. American helicopters in Vietnam had good speed and maneuverability, but they did not carry weapons with them and therefore could not help the soldiers in local battles, in contrast to it, the Soviet Mi were armed with a machine gun and direct-fire missiles. There are many other examples that show that the better economic position of the United States compared to the USSR did not contribute to the growth of the effectiveness of the armed forces, and therefore the huge financial resources of the United States were spent without bringing the desired results.

11
4. Solving the problem of disarmament
At the moment, the solution of all global problems is handled by the UN. This organization was originally created to solve the problems of maintaining peace, so the problem of disarmament is one of the priorities.
The UN has been trying to find a solution to this problem for decades, trying to negotiate with the USA and the USSR on the mutual reduction of weapons, which by October 1986 in the USSR amounted to 10,000 nuclear charges, and in the USA 14,800 charges. Various laws and resolutions were developed that had the goal of peacefully and legislatively stopping the bloody confrontations between the two ideological systems in third world countries, as well as reducing the risk of new military conflicts (both local and global). Thus, in December 1984, the UN opposed the transfer of the arms race to outer space, adopting a resolution on the use of outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes. Although these attempts in different years had different results, on the whole the problem of disarmament remained open, and there were no radical changes in its solution until the end of the 1980s.
With the beginning of perestroika in the Soviet Union (1985), the process of rapprochement of the two superpowers in matters of peace and cooperation began. In November 1987, a meeting was held between the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, M.S. Gorbachev and US President R. Reagan, during which an agreement was signed between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles, as well as protocols related to it on procedures for the elimination of missiles and on inspections. In March 1989, negotiations were held in Vienna between the countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact and NATO, these negotiations provided for the reduction of armaments from the Atlantic to the Urals. In July 1991, a new meeting of the leaders of the USSR and the USA took place in Moscow, during which an agreement was signed on the reduction of approximately one-third of the strategic offensive weapons of both countries. Finally, in 1992, Russia and the United States signed a declaration to end the Cold War.
The threat of a third world war has ceased to be real. And this is rightfully the merit of the UN. But even after the end of the Cold War and the destruction of the Soviet Union, the possibility that undestroyed nuclear warheads could again be aimed at the cities of the world has not disappeared. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has pledged to help Russia cope with the dangerous legacy of the USSR. The IMF as well as the UN is a body engaged in solving global problems. It provides financial assistance to solve these problems. Most of the cash assistance is provided to the country in the form of loans, which must be repaid within a predetermined period. Thus, any
12
countries no longer need to seek financial resources to solve their problems. These funds can be provided by the IMF at any time. Russia was also granted IMF loans to solve internal economic problems, including disarmament problems, but this will be discussed later.
At the beginning of the 21st century, new methods of solving global problems appeared.
These methods include the creation of Global Custodians. This is a global electronic exchange that allows you to attract unlimited resources from abroad for any period. Trading on this exchange is carried out via the Internet, which is also a method of solving global problems. With the help of Global Custodians, countries can purchase any amount of the required resource without resorting to military methods to seize the same resource. And therefore, excessive weapons become unnecessary.

4.1. Problems of disarmament and conversion of production in Russia
After the collapse of the USSR (December 1991), Russia became his successor. She inherited all the problems and debts of the Soviet Union, while losing a third of the territory, more than 40% of the population, more than 30% of production assets. one
At the same time, the economy was on the verge of collapse, and this trend was outlined in previous years.
The share of the main subsystems of the economy in the global totality of GDP, % 2 .

Subsystem	1970	1980	1985	1987	1992
Prom. the developed countries	67,8	68	70,1	72,3	74
Eastern European countries	16,5	10,5	9,7	9,5	8
developing countries	15,5	21,5	20,2	18,2	18

"Problems of peace and disarmament"

Introduction

1. Wars: Causes and Victims

2. Arms control problem

Conclusion

List of used literature

“Devastating wars will always take place on earth ... And death will often be the lot of all the belligerents. With boundless malice, these savages will destroy many trees in the forests of the planet, and then turn their fury on everything that is still alive around, bringing him pain and destruction, suffering and death. Neither on earth, nor under earth, nor under water will there be anything untouched and undamaged. The wind will scatter the land devoid of vegetation around the world and sprinkle it with the remains of creatures that once filled different countries with life ”- this chilling prophecy belongs to the great Italian of the Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci.

Today you see that the brilliant painter was not so naive in his prediction. Indeed, who today will take the liberty of reproaching the author of these words, which are not very pleasant for us, of spreading some kind of “absurd fables” or inciting unnecessary passions? These are unlikely to be found, because the great Leonardo turned out to be right in many ways. Unfortunately, the whole history of the development of mankind is a terrible history of military operations.

The second part of the prophecy of Leonardo da Vinci, to our great happiness, has not yet been realized, or rather: it has not been fully realized. But who today is not clear that for the first time in its history, humanity has seriously faced the question: "To be or not to be?" (At the same time, we emphasize: humanity collided, and not an individual person, with whose fate the Hamlet question is connected). Blood, torment and tears were all over the human path. However, new generations always came to replace the dead and the dead, and the future was, as it were, guaranteed. But now there is no such guarantee.

In the period from 1900 to 1938, 24 wars broke out, and in the years 1946-1979 - 130. More and more human casualties became. 3.7 million people died in the Napoleonic Wars, 10 million in World War I, 55 million in World War II (together with the civilian population), and 100 million in all wars of the 20th century. To this we can add that the first world war captured an area in Europe of 200 thousand km2, and the second already - 3.3 million km2.

Thus, the Heidelberg Institute (Germany) in 2006 registered 278 conflicts. 35 of them are of an acutely violent nature. Both regular troops and detachments of militants participate in armed clashes. But not only they suffer human losses: there are even more victims among the civilian population. In 83 cases, the conflicts proceeded in a less severe form, i.e. the use of force occurred only occasionally. In the remaining 160 cases, conflict situations were not accompanied by hostilities. 100 of them were in the nature of a declarative confrontation, and 60 proceeded in the form of a hidden confrontation.

According to the Center for Defense Information (USA), there are only 15 major conflicts in the world (losses exceed 1 thousand people). Experts from the Stockholm SIPRI Institute believe that this year 19 major armed conflicts took place in 16 places on the planet.

More than half of all hot spots are on the African continent. The war in Iraq has been going on in the Greater Middle East for several years now. Afghanistan, where NATO is trying to restore order, is also far from calm, and the intensity of attacks by the Taliban and al-Qaeda militants on government structures, troops and police, and on the military units of the North Atlantic Alliance is only increasing.

Some international experts suggest that armed conflicts annually claim up to 300,000 lives, mostly civilians. They account for 65 to 90% of losses (the figure varies depending on the intensity of hostilities). Statistics show that only 5% of those killed in World War I were civilians, and in World War II, about 70% of those killed were not combatants.

However, in none of the current armed conflicts there are clashes between different countries. The struggle is going on within the dysfunctional states. Governments are confronted by various paramilitaries of rebels, militants and separatists. And they all serve different purposes.

Back in 2001, after large-scale terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the United States declared war on international terrorism, but even today, five years later, there is no end in sight to it, more and more forces are being drawn into it.

For example, the wave of violence in Iraq does not subside. Since the country was occupied and Saddam Hussein's regime was overthrown in 2003, militant attacks have hit the United States and its allies. Today, Iraq is slipping more and more into the abyss of civil war. Many US experts, and, above all, members of a special commission that recently submitted 79 recommendations to President George W. Bush on settling the situation in Mesopotamia, insist on the withdrawal of US troops from the region. However, the owner of the White House, at the request of the generals and in accordance with his intentions to win at all costs, decided to increase the size of the contingent.

In Sudan, there is a fierce confrontation between the Muslim north and the Christian south, striving for autonomy. The first skirmishes between the Sudan People's Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement took place in 1983. In 2003, the confrontation took the form of a ruthless war in Darfur. Here, too, there is no end in sight to armed violence, and tensions only continue to grow.

The main sources of armed conflicts and the scale of victims associated with them are reflected in Appendix 1 and 3. Let's try to understand the causes of wars of various scales.

If until the 20th century the struggle for territories rich in minerals was carried out primarily by states, now numerous irregular armies of separatists and simply bandits have joined the struggle.

The UN concluded that since the end of the Cold War (1991), the number of armed conflicts in the world has decreased by 40%. Moreover, wars have become much less bloody. If in 1950 the average armed conflict claimed the lives of 37 thousand people, then in 2002 - 600. The UN believes that the merit in reducing the number of wars belongs to the international community. The UN and individual countries of the world are making significant efforts to prevent new wars from breaking out and stopping old ones. In addition, the increase in the number of democratic regimes plays a positive role: it is generally accepted that modern democracies do not go to war with each other.

Renowned analyst Michael Clare, author of Resource Wars, is convinced that the world has entered an era of resource wars, and year by year these wars will become more frequent and fierce. The reason is the growing needs of mankind and the reduction of natural resources. Moreover, according to Clare, the most likely wars that will be waged for control over fresh water reserves.

Throughout human history, states have fought each other for territories rich in minerals. The bloody war between Iraq and Iran was started because of Iraqi claims to a number of Iranian territories rich in oil. For the same reason, Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, which in Baghdad was considered an integral part of Iraqi territory. Today, approximately 50 of the 192 countries in the world dispute certain territories with their neighbors. Quite often, these claims do not become the subject of diplomatic disputes, since it is too dangerous to make these claims an integral part of bilateral relations. However, some politicians are in favor of a speedy resolution of such problems. According to the American researcher Daniel Pipes, there are 20 such disputes in Africa (for example, Libya argues with Chad and Niger, Cameroon with Nigeria, Ethiopia with Somalia, etc.), in Europe - 19, in the Middle East - 12, in Latin America - 8. China is a kind of leader in the number of claims - it claims 7 land plots, regarding which its neighbors have a different opinion.

The "resource" component, that is, the factor of the presence of significant mineral reserves in the disputed territory or in the part of the ocean belonging to it, as a rule, makes it difficult to resolve interstate disputes. Examples of such conflicts are the situation that has developed around the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, which are claimed by Great Britain and Argentina (large deposits of oil have been discovered in the Falklands), the islands in Corisco Bay, which are claimed by Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (oil has also been discovered there) , the islands of Abu Musa and Tanb in the Strait of Hormuz (Iran and the United Arab Emirates, oil), the Spratly archipelago (the subject of a dispute between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei. This area is rich in high-quality oil, competing countries opened hostilities several times ) etc.

The most peaceful dispute is over the territories of Antarctica (which also contain significant reserves of various minerals), which are claimed by Australia, France, Norway, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and Great Britain, with the last three countries contesting a number of territories of the ice continent from each other. A number of states of the world, in principle, do not recognize these claims, but other countries reserve the right to make similar demands.

Since all applicants for a piece of the Antarctic pie are parties to the Antarctic Treaty, signed in 1959, recognizing the Sixth Continent as a zone of peace and international cooperation, free from weapons, the transition of these disputes to a military stage is almost impossible. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina demonstratively declared the Antarctic Islands to be the territories of their countries, which provoked protests from the world community.

However, in the modern world, the most bloody wars take place not between two states, but between residents of one country. The vast majority of modern armed conflicts do not occur between states, but are ethnic, religious, class, etc. According to the former financier and now researcher Ted Fishman, with rare exceptions, these wars were, first of all, wars for money. In his opinion, wars began where rival clans began to fight for control over deposits of oil, gas, gold, diamonds, etc.

In the United States over the past 10 years, at least 20 scientific papers have been published on the search for a connection between the country's natural wealth and the risk of war. Most researchers agree that the exact relationship has not yet been determined. It is generally accepted that mineral reserves become an excellent "fuel" for conflict. The reasons for this are quite prosaic: an insurgent group that does not have stable sources of funding (except for minerals, this can be income from the sale of drugs, weapons, rackets, etc.) is not able to arm a significant number of its supporters and, moreover, to conduct a systematic and long-term military campaign. It is also important that the war is fought for control over resources that are not only easy to sell, but also easy to mine.

As a result, the main goal of many such groups is not to overthrow the central government or acquire civil rights that their social, ethnic, religious, etc. group was deprived of, but to establish and maintain control over resources.

Several attempts have been made to identify "risk factors" contributing to the outbreak of such a war. Economists Paul Koller and Anke Hoeffler found that countries with one or two major resources used as their main export (such as oil or cocoa) are five times more likely to experience a civil war problem than diversified economies. The most dangerous is the level of 26% - meaning the share of the state's gross domestic product, obtained through the export of one type of raw material.

The less developed the economy of a country, and the less diversified it is, the more likely it is to start a civil war. James Fearon and David Laytin, authors of Ethnicity, Guerrilla and Civil War, came to a similar conclusion. Ibrahim Elbadavi and Nicolas Sambanis, the authors of the study “How many wars are we waiting for?” argue with them, arguing that the presence of a resource component does not increase the risk of a war.

William Renault, a professor at Northwestern University, names another "risk factor" - the inefficiency of the central government. War often begins where those in power seek, first of all, only for personal enrichment. Michael Renner, author of The Anatomy of Resource Wars, notes that quite often armed conflicts arose due to the existence of vicious schemes for generating income from the exploitation of natural resources (for example, Mobutu, the ruler of Zaire, had a personal fortune that exceeded the country's annual GDP) . This problem is especially acute in Africa, where the ruling clans, through privatization, gain control over the main sources of raw materials and the largest enterprises. Resentful clans and factions sometimes resort to military force to redistribute property in their favor.

David Keane, lecturer at the London School of Economics, notes that such wars are difficult to end. The reason is that the war enriches certain groups of people - officials, military, businessmen, etc., who profit from the underground trade in resources, weapons, etc. If officials and soldiers receive a small salary, then they seek to rectify the situation and, in fact, turn into into field commanders doing business in war.

It is impossible to determine the amount of valuable mineral resources illegally supplied to the world market by rebel and other illegal structures. For example, in 1999, De Beers concluded that rough diamonds mined in conflict zones accounted for 4% of global production. A year later, a group of UN experts stated that up to 20% of all rough diamonds circulating in the world are of illegal origin.

Transnational corporations also play a negative role, periodically trying to capitalize on the conflict. According to the research Worldwatch Institute, De Beers Corporation bought up diamonds put on the market by rebel groups, while oil companies Chevron and Elf sponsored and trained the armed forces of several African states, seeking to ensure their control over oil fields.

O One of the most important issues in the sphere of strategic security is arms control and disarmament in the world. This question has been raised since the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th after the bloody Second World War it became even more important. In this regard, the United Nations and other international organizations have undertaken arms control and disarmament efforts in three areas: nuclear, conventional and biological weapons. However, unfortunately, the human community still does not have a clear program of general disarmament.

In 2004, the countries of the world spent a total of more than one trillion dollars on military needs. This amount means the allocation of more than 6% of the world's gross production for the development and purchase of weapons. According to a report by the International Institute for Peace Studies in Stockholm, of the total world military spending in 2004, about 47% came from the United States alone.

Currently, the arms trade is a significant part of the total world trade, or rather about 16% of the 5 trillion. dollars of world trade, this is 800 billion. The sale of weapons and military equipment in the world continues to grow, so that weapons and defense enterprises in 2002-2003. increased production by 25%. In 2003, these businesses generated $236 billion in arms sales, with US companies accounting for 63%. The United States has been the world's largest arms supplier since the end of the Cold War. They are followed by Russia, Great Britain and France.

It is interesting to know that in 2002 the total value of arms sales in the world was 188 billion dollars, which indicates a significant increase in the production of weapons in a limited number of countries and the supply of these weapons to countries involved in armed conflicts, such as the Middle East. For the past half century, the countries of the Middle East have been among the world's top arms buyers. The facts show that there is an inextricable link between arms transfers and the outbreak of crises and subsequent armed conflicts around the world.

In view of the huge profits received from the sale of weapons in the world, some countries-producers of weapons, provoking friction and disagreements between other countries, which then develop into political and interethnic conflicts, as if create an opportunity to increase the sale of their weapons. For example, the US military-industrial complex is a conglomerate of private defense enterprises, which includes very influential and powerful companies and concerns.

This super-powerful conglomerate has a strong influence on the domestic and foreign policy of governments, for example in the US and the UK. So on May 22, 2005, when the so-called fight against terrorism had not yet freed Bush's hands for aggression and wars, the British newspaper The Guardian wrote:

“George Bush does not hide his main presidential task. This task is to reward all those corporations and companies that helped him get into the White House. In addition to oil corporations and large tobacco companies, rewards in the total amount of $ 200 billion from the US budget are expected by military-industrial complex enterprises. Mr. Bush is looking for the image of a new enemy under the guise of national security to accomplish this task, and he is looking for a new enemy around the world.

After the events of September 2001, Bush, Rumsfeld and other officials in the Pentagon received the necessary pretext to start a war. The war on international terrorism was the pretext that helped the administration raise the defense budget from $310.5 billion to $343 billion in 2002. Following this, Lockheed Martin was awarded the largest defense contract in history worth $200 billion. Unfortunately, today the world community, under the pretext of ensuring world security, is spending huge amounts of money on the purchase of the latest weapons. UN Food Program Executive Director James Morris believes that a small fraction of the Iraq war budget could feed all the hungry and poor people in the world and serve world peace and security. In 2004, the UN Food Program needed three billion dollars to provide humanitarian assistance to millions of people. At the same time, several hundred billion dollars have already been spent on the war in Iraq, and irreparable damage has been done to the Iraqi people.

Due to the devastating consequences of the buildup of armaments, namely wars, conflicts, destruction and the colossal costs associated with this, the world community has been striving for many years to somehow curb the arms race and achieve general disarmament. In recent years, as a result of progress in the development of ever new weapons, it has become increasingly difficult to give qualitative and quantitative estimates of the production of weapons in the world. The complexity is added, on the one hand, by the growing accuracy of destruction, and, on the other hand, by the development of new means of intercepting these weapons. Today, the pace of qualitative, technical development of means of warfare is constantly accelerating. Therefore, the first step is to “slow down”. However, all signs point to the fact that the world community has not yet achieved appreciable success in arms control, curbing the arms race and general disarmament.

Due to the huge profits made from the arms trade, the military industries are constantly developing and applying the latest technologies in production. At the same time, growing investment in the military-industrial complex, mainly from the private sector in Western countries, increases the anxieties and fears of the entire human community. Appendix 2 provides data on arms sales over the past 10 years. In principle, the question of the need for arms control and even disarmament in the world arose at the beginning of the 19th century. However, after two bloody world wars of the 20th century and the hard experience acquired at the cost of millions of lives, mankind has taken up this issue more seriously and in this regard several agreements have been signed at the international and regional levels.

One of the most important international institutions dealing with arms control and general disarmament is the United Nations. This organization, whose philosophy of existence is to protect peace and ensure world security, from the very beginning of its activity, faced problems and disagreements in the interpretation of arms control and disarmament. Studying the track record of the UN in this area, we see that, despite the functioning of numerous committees and commissions, it has not been able to make significant progress in curbing the arms race.

The UN agencies that are somehow connected with arms control include the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Commission on Non-Nuclear Arms, the Disarmament Commission, the Disarmament Committee, etc. For example, after the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Air Force in In 1945, in order to prevent a repetition of these horrors, the Atomic Energy Commission was created in 1946. This commission had overarching powers to oversee the proliferation of primary nuclear substances and had the ability to inspect the country's nuclear facilities in order to gain confidence in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Following this, in 1947, the Commission on Non-Nuclear Arms was formed.

The tasks of the commission on non-nuclear weapons, which included permanent members of the UN Security Council, included measures to reduce non-nuclear weapons. However, in 1950 this commission was dissolved. After the creation of nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union and the outbreak of the Korean War, a new body was formed, the Disarmament Commission, which operated until 1957. However, by agreement between the USA and the USSR, this commission was also dissolved, and instead of it, a UN Disarmament Committee was formed, in which included 10 UN member states. The Committee, which proclaimed its goal complete and comprehensive disarmament in the world, acted outside the United Nations. Throughout the activity of this committee, various initiatives and programs have been proposed to curb the arms race and general disarmament. However, the cold war between the US and the USSR and tensions in international relations prevented the implementation of any of these projects.

The activities of the 10-party disarmament committee ceased in 1960. Three years later, by agreement between the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain, another disarmament committee was created to limit nuclear tests, this time consisting of 18 countries. With the accession of the rest of the UN members to this committee, the Conference on Disarmament was formed, which operates within the framework of the United Nations.

Along with the activities aimed at the control and limitation of arms in the world, other disarmament efforts were also made at the international level. With the division of all weapons into nuclear and non-nuclear, treaties and agreements were concluded between different countries. The most important conventions in this regard are the Moscow Agreement of 1963 and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968.

Summing up what has been said and taking a look at the entire process of building up armaments in the world, it can be noted that, despite the efforts made in the framework of arms control and global disarmament, the arms race in the world is still ongoing. More than half a century after the formation of the United Nations, the contribution of this organization to world disarmament remains negligible. During the Cold War, this circumstance assigned the UN a marginal, ineffective role in resolving world problems, while at the same time provoking a qualitative and quantitative buildup of weapons, both nuclear and conventional.

Among the countries producing and exporting weapons, the United States still retains, undoubtedly, the leading position. The militaristic plans and ambitions of such powers as the United States since the Cold War have shown that the world community is still very far from realizing its main aspirations, i.e. arms control and, to the extent possible, global disarmament, achieving world peace. For in recent decades, the United States and other arms manufacturers continue to develop new technologies for the production of the latest weapons. This speaks of the failure of all peacekeeping and disarmament efforts, including the already signed agreements and conventions on the control and prohibition of especially dangerous types of weapons. As long as major military powers like the United States do not live up to their obligations under disarmament agreements, all these conventions, with no executive guarantees, remain just beautiful drafts on paper.

1. James A. Russell, WMD Proliferation, Globalization, and International Security: Whither the Nexus and National Security? – Strategic Insights, Volume V, Issue 6 (July 2006)

2. Igor Ivanov, International Security in the Era of Globalization – www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/define/2003/0304security.htm

3. Stephen G. Brooks, Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict - Princeton Studies in International History and Politics, Princeton University Press, USA 2005. – p. 337

5. John J. Handful, The Challenges of Transformation - NATO Review, Spring 2005 www.nato.int/review

6. Robert J. Bell, Achievements in NATO Transformation - NATO Review, Spring 2005 www.nato.int/review

7. NATO Response Force being tested. // NATO News No. 2/2006 - p.10

8. Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier, Global NATO – Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006. – p. 105

9. "G8 countries: the largest exporters of arms" Fragment of the report within the framework of the campaign "Weapons - under control!" // SIPRI. - 22nd of June. 2005.

Attachment 1

Appendix 2

The table lists the leading arms suppliers, as well as the volume of all arms transfers in the world (million US dollars of current purchasing power) from 1996 to 2003 (according to SIPRI).

Annex 3

Wars and major conflicts in 2006

Problems of Russian foreign trade

Abstract on international relations

Problems of modern globalization of the world economy

The problem of maintaining peace on earth, preventing military catastrophes and conflicts has always been one of the most important throughout the existence of mankind. Formed in many countries, military-industrial complexes spend huge amounts of money on the production of weapons and scientific research in this area. Rapid progress in the military field is precisely what threatens security and contributes to the deepening of global problems.

Disarmament is one of the global problems of our time, which directly affects the survival of human civilization. This is a system of measures aimed at ending the arms race, limiting, reducing and eliminating the means of waging war. Mankind is increasingly aware of the importance and relevance of this problem, trying to keep it within the limits controlled by the world community. Still, the problem of disarmament is ambiguous, since it is connected with the possibility of the death of civilization.

The following most important circumstances will help to fully assess the real danger of the arms race as a pernicious global process. First, the progress of military technology has reached such a scale that new, more and more advanced weapons, fundamentally new weapon systems are appearing at an unprecedented speed. This blurs the line between weapons as a means of armed struggle against enemy armies and as a means of struggle against the population and economy of states and entire regions. Secondly, the further development of nuclear missile weapons, accompanied by the development of appropriate military-political doctrines for their use, makes political control over them more and more difficult. Thirdly, progress in the creation of modern means of destruction is gradually blurring the line between nuclear and conventional war. Fourth, the problem of the arms race has included in its ranks the interests of people working in industries that create the means of destroying the military-industrial complex, forcing them to unwittingly defend it. Fifth, the problem of increasing or reducing the production of weapons runs into conflicting interests of different states, because it ensures, to one degree or another, their geopolitical interests.

Statistically, the pernicious danger and inexpediency of a further arms race can be illustrated as follows: global military spending increased more than 30 times during the 20th century. If in the period between the world wars humanity spent from 20 to 22 billion dollars annually on military purposes, today it is more than 1 trillion dollars. According to UN experts, about 100 million people are included in the sphere of military production activities, the number of armies that exist today reaches almost 40 million people, and up to 500 thousand men are employed in military research and the creation of new weapons. At the same time, military purposes account for 2/5 of all spending on science. The global labor costs associated with various types of military activities amount to 100 million man-years annually. Scientists have calculated that the funds that are spent on weapons for only one year would be enough to irrigate 150 million hectares of land, the use of which could feed 1 billion people. Such spending would be enough to build 100 million apartments or other modern housing for 500 million people in one year.

Not "free", not "gratuitous", not "extra" resources are used for the arms race. It takes a significant part of the world's resources vital for development purposes (Table 21.1). The United States alone spends $700 billion a year for these purposes.

Table 21.1

Comparison of the costs of militarization and the funds required to solve some social and environmental problems

(billion dollars)

But a particularly paradoxical phenomenon is the arms race in the countries of the "third world", where 80% of the population of our planet lives, and the role in world production is less than 20%. The poorest countries (with a GNP per capita of less than $440), which generate only 5% of the world's goods and services and are home to more than half of the world's population, account for 7.5% of global arms spending, compared to 1%. for health care and less than 3% for education. In these countries, there is 1 doctor per 3,700 people, and 250 people per soldier. The direct socio-economic damage accumulated by the arms race on a global scale many times exceeds all the losses suffered by the countries of the world through various natural disasters. The trend towards the growth of resources diverted to military purposes leads to the aggravation of economic and social problems in many countries, and adversely affects the development of civilian production and the standard of living of peoples. Therefore, disarmament, curtailment of military production (conversion) is today one of the problems that requires the participation of the entire world community.

International cooperation for peace, solution of global security problems, disarmament and conflict resolution

All global problems are permeated with the idea of ​​the geographical unity of mankind and require broad international cooperation for their solution. Especially acute is the problem of maintaining peace on Earth

From the point of view of new political thinking, the achievement of lasting peace on Earth is possible only in the conditions of the establishment of a new type of relationship between all states - a relationship of all-round cooperation.

The program "International cooperation for peace, solving global problems of security, disarmament and conflict resolution" is designed to support and develop relations between international non-governmental organizations, between government and society in the field of improving international security. This program will deal with issues such as the reduction of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons.

The purpose of the program is to respond in time to the development of the political process, both in the CIS countries and around the world. The program will also analyze contemporary problems of peace and security.

The program includes the following projects:

· The structure of international security and cooperation with international institutions and non-governmental international organizations;

· Problems of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;

· Assistance in improving legislation in the field of military-civil relations;

Security issues in relation to armed conflicts and the solution of global problems are dealt with by scientists, politicians, and non-governmental organizations. In the course of work, international and regional conferences, seminars and meetings are held, reports and collections of articles are published.

At the moment, not everyone has an idea about the existing danger, about the possibility and size of a catastrophe with the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Mankind does not pay due attention to this problem due to ignorance and unawareness of the entire depth of the problem. In no case should we forget that the threat of the use of WMD, unfortunately, is present in everyday life through the active propaganda of violence. This phenomenon is happening all over the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin said something like this: We must be aware that the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become one of the most important contemporary problems, if not the most important. The fact is that with the advent of the new century, qualitatively new challenges have appeared for mankind - new types of WMD, the phenomenon of international terrorism, which has complicated the problem of its non-proliferation. Non-proliferation is the prevention and non-admission of the emergence of new states with weapons of mass destruction. This can be understood as follows: Russia cannot allow the emergence of new nuclear powers.

Preventing the threat of WMD proliferation is recognized by Russia, the United States and other countries as one of the main tasks of ensuring their national security.

For the first time the world community thought about the non-proliferation of WMD in the 60s of the last century, when such nuclear powers as the USSR, USA, Great Britain, France had already appeared; and China was ready to join them. At this time, countries such as Israel, Sweden, Italy, and others began to seriously think about nuclear weapons and even began to develop them.

In the same 1960s, Ireland initiated the creation of an international legal document that laid the foundations for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The USSR, the USA and England began to develop the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). They became the first parties to this treaty. It was signed on 07/01/1968, but entered into force in March 1970. France and China entered into this treaty a few decades later.

Its main goals are to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, to stimulate cooperation in the field of the use of the atom for peaceful purposes with guarantees from the participating parties, to facilitate negotiations on ending the rivalry in the development of nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of its complete elimination.

Under the terms of this Treaty, nuclear-weapon states undertake not to assist non-nuclear states in acquiring nuclear explosive devices. Non-nuclear states undertake not to manufacture or acquire such devices. One of the provisions of the Treaty requires the IAEA to carry out measures to ensure safeguards, including the inspection of nuclear materials used in peaceful projects by non-nuclear States parties to the Treaty. The NPT (Article 10, paragraph 2) states that 25 years after the entry into force of the Treaty, a conference is convened to decide whether it should remain in force or not. Conference reports were held under the terms of the Treaty every five years, and in 1995, when it came to the end of its 25-year period, the parties - participants unanimously supported its indefinite extension. They also adopted three binding Declarations of Principles:

· Reaffirmation of previous commitments regarding nuclear weapons and the cessation of all nuclear tests;

· Strengthening disarmament control procedures;

There are 178 states parties to the treaty, including the existing nuclear powers (with the exception of North Korea), which have come out in favor of a missile technology control regime. There are also four countries conducting nuclear activities that have not joined the Treaty: Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba.

The Cold War was accompanied by the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, both by the main adversaries and various non-aligned countries. The end of the Cold War made it possible for the countries of the world community to reduce and then eliminate nuclear weapons. Otherwise, countries will inevitably be drawn into the process of nuclear proliferation, as each religious "superpower" seeks to either strengthen its hegemony or equalize its nuclear power with the power of the enemy or aggressor. The threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons and, to no lesser extent, nuclear technology and know-how has increased significantly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. For the first time, there was a disintegration of a state possessing nuclear weapons, a state - a permanent member of the UN. As a result, more countries with nuclear weapons appeared. This problem was taken very seriously, and after a while Russia received all the rights and obligations of the USSR related to the NPT. She also received the internationally recognized right to the perpetual possession of nuclear weapons. Together with the UN, the NPT fixes for Russia the status of a great power at the level of such countries as the USA, China, England, France.

Western assistance in this area has become an important element in strengthening the nonproliferation regime. This assistance shows that the West does not want to see the CIS countries as a source of spreading threats. At the G-8 summit in Canada in July 2002, important decisions were made on issues of international terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The most important components of the nuclear and other WMD non-proliferation regimes are:

· An export control system, including a well-functioning national system for accounting, control and physical protection of weapons materials. This also includes the prevention of uncontrolled export of intangible technologies, including in electronic form.

· Brain drain prevention system.

· Safety of storage, warehousing, transportation of WMD and materials suitable for its production.

· A system to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear and other WMD and materials.

As for chemical and biological weapons (CW), the main problem is that they do not require a special technological base during manufacture, so it is impossible to create a reliable CW control mechanism. But no matter how international legal documents are created, conferences are held.

Biological weapons are an effective means of achieving the goals of terrorists: they are capable of hitting large masses of the civilian population, and this is very attractive to terrorists, and can easily provoke panic and chaos.

Terrorism is a very big problem in our time. Modern terrorism appears in the form of terrorist acts that have an international scale. Terrorism appears when a society is going through a deep crisis, primarily a crisis of ideology and the state-legal system. In such a society, various opposition groups appear - political, social, national, religious. For them, the legitimacy of the existing government becomes questionable. Terrorism as a mass and politically significant phenomenon is the result of an endemic "de-ideologization", when certain groups in society easily question the legitimacy and rights of the state, and thus self-justify their transition to terror in order to achieve their own goals.

The main strategic conditions for the fight against terrorism:

Reconstruction of a stable block world;

blocking terrorism at the initial stage and preventing its formation and development of structures;

· preventing the ideological justification of terror under the banner of "defending the rights of the nation", "defending the faith", etc.; the debunking of terrorism by all the forces of the media;

Transfer of all management of anti-terrorist activities to the most reliable special services with no interference in their work by any other control bodies;

· the use of an agreement with terrorists only by these special services and only to cover up the preparation of an action for the complete destruction of terrorists;

· no concessions to terrorists, not a single unpunished terrorist act, even if it costs the blood of hostages and random people, because practice shows that any success of terrorists provokes a further increase in terror and the number of victims.

I would like to end this article with such an appeal. An important role is played by issues related to the education of people, especially young people. A unified system of combating terrorism should be developed, where the main place is given to preventive measures. Education and awareness of people in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of WMD, as well as terrorism is one of the tasks that requires more attention.