The Collapse of Arms Control Regimes and the Growing Risk of World War Three
For decades, international arms control agreements played a central role in stabilizing relations among major powers. Treaties governing nuclear AMDBET weapons, missiles, and conventional forces reduced uncertainty, increased transparency, and provided mechanisms for crisis management. The erosion and collapse of these regimes now represent a significant risk factor in the pathway toward World War Three.
Arms control agreements historically functioned as guardrails. They limited the deployment of destabilizing weapons, established verification mechanisms, and created communication channels between rivals. As these frameworks weaken or dissolve, states operate with less information about adversaries’ capabilities and intentions, increasing suspicion and worst-case planning.
The decline of nuclear arms control is particularly dangerous. Without binding limits and inspections, states may expand arsenals, diversify delivery systems, and shorten launch timelines. This expansion compresses decision-making windows during crises, increasing the probability of miscalculation or accidental escalation between nuclear-armed powers.
Missile and space-related agreements have also deteriorated. The development of hypersonic weapons, missile defense systems, and anti-satellite capabilities introduces uncertainty into deterrence calculations. When states fear that their retaliatory capacity could be neutralized, incentives for preemptive action increase, undermining strategic stability.
Conventional arms control faces similar challenges. Reduced transparency around troop deployments, military exercises, and force modernization raises the risk that defensive actions will be perceived as offensive preparations. In contested regions, this ambiguity can turn routine maneuvers into triggers for escalation.
Alliance dynamics further complicate the arms control vacuum. As trust in treaties declines, states increasingly rely on military alliances and deterrence postures for security. While alliances can deter aggression, they also widen conflicts when crises emerge, drawing multiple actors into confrontations that might otherwise remain limited.
The absence of arms control also accelerates arms races. Competitive procurement and rapid technological innovation—particularly in AI-enabled weapons—create feedback loops where restraint is viewed as weakness. These dynamics strain budgets, elevate tensions, and reduce diplomatic flexibility.
Despite these risks, arms control is not obsolete. New frameworks adapted to emerging technologies and multipolar realities could restore stability. Confidence-building measures, transparency initiatives, and crisis communication channels remain viable tools for reducing escalation risk, even in the absence of comprehensive treaties.
World War Three is unlikely to result from a single treaty’s collapse. However, the cumulative erosion of arms control removes critical safeguards against miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation. Rebuilding or reimagining these mechanisms is essential to prevent great power competition from spiraling into global war.