Biological weapons (BW) have been a fixture of warfare throughout history, although states did not have the capability of manufacturing BW arsenals until the 20th century. Few states had strategic objectives for BW production, but the fear of being outmatched by rivals produced arms races beginning in the 1920s. Both hegemonic and rogue states sought BW arsenals, although only Imperial Japan is known to have employed them. International agreements prohibiting BW have been ineffective, but normative, technical, and deterrent constraints have prevented the arms from being used.
BW remain undertheorized in the international studies literature and have not been part of the great debates within the field. The literature on BW has instead been far more technical than that for other categories of armaments. The main division among BW researchers is whether the select agents are likely to be spread by proliferation to rogue states, terrorists, or lone actors or whether the technical difficulties inherent in production mean that only states that have invested in advanced research will be able to harness them.
The biological weapons of the 21st century will be new technologies developed by great power militaries ranging from enhanced supersoldiers to genetic attacks that cause organ failure at the push of a button. These advancements raise difficult questions about Just War, military service, and domestic civil liberties. Just as the advent of nuclear weapons and drones preceded informed debate, military uses of biotechnology have already begun and require examination before they are deployed widely.
Article
The Pursuit and Use of Biological Weapons by States
David Malet
Article
Arms Buildups and the Use of Military Force
David F. Mitchell and Jeffrey Pickering
The empirical literature on arms buildups and the use of interstate military force has advanced considerably over the last half century. Research has largely confirmed that a relationship exists between arms buildups and the subsequent use of force, although it is historically contingent. The relationship seems to have existed in some earlier historical periods but has not been a feature of international politics since 1945. Broader work such as the steps-to-war model brings understanding to such variation by demonstrating how arms races are interrelated with other causes of conflict, such as territorial disputes and alliances. Still, many important dimensions of the arms race–conflict connection remain to be explored. Differences between qualitative and quantitative arms races, for example, have not received sufficient empirical scrutiny. Precise theory also needs to be developed on direct and indirect relationships between arms races and conflict, and such theory requires empirical investigation.
Article
The American Antinuclear Movement
Paul Rubinson
Spanning countries across the globe, the antinuclear movement was the combined effort of millions of people to challenge the superpowers’ reliance on nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Encompassing an array of tactics, from radical dissent to public protest to opposition within the government, this movement succeeded in constraining the arms race and helping to make the use of nuclear weapons politically unacceptable. Antinuclear activists were critical to the establishment of arms control treaties, although they failed to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, as anticommunists, national security officials, and proponents of nuclear deterrence within the United States and Soviet Union actively opposed the movement. Opposition to nuclear weapons evolved in tandem with the Cold War and the arms race, leading to a rapid decline in antinuclear activism after the Cold War ended.
