As part of my international relations module I have had to write an essay on the threat posed to security by small arms. Since my contributions to the blogosphere have of late been poor to say the least, here is a copy of said essay/discussion. I’d be intersted to hear people’s thoughts. Do you think arms pose the greatest threat? Or do nuclear weapons still present the greatest danger?

———————————————————————————————————

The threat to security posed by small arms outweighs that of nuclear weapons by a considerable margin. Unlike nuclear weapons, small arms are easily of available, low in cost and simple to use. It is estimated that there are 600 million small arms in circulation worldwide as of 2006. Small arms provide a constant challenge to both human security and that of the state throughout the world through conflict, civil war, crime and genocide to name but a few. Whilst in theory a nuclear weapon could be used to achieve many of the objectives conventional small arms are used for, the reality is that nuclear weapons simply do not threaten security to the extent that small arms do on a daily basis.

For the purpose of this essay, “Small arms” are defined as “weapons that fire a projectile… [that may] be carried by an individual, a small number of people, or transported by a pack animal or a light vehicle”. “Security” will be defined as the measure of “the absence of threats to acquired values … [and] the absence of fear that such values will be attacked”. It is important to outline these definitions before justifying the threat of small arms, as the concept of security is a debated term and clarifying which definition is used will give the perspective from which the argument will be made.

From the creation of the first nuclear weapon to present day, there have been only two direct uses of nuclear weapons against another state or peoples. Both of these took place at the end of World War Two, dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 and Nagasaki on the 9th of August 1945. Since the 6th/9th of August, it is estimated that the two bombs are responsible for approximately 354,394 deaths in the last 65 years. In contrast, small arms are responsible for approximately 400,000 deaths every year, of which at least 100,000 are in conflict zones. Based on this statistic, over the same period as the two nuclear attacks, small arms are potentially responsible for some 23,035,610 deaths worldwide. This shows that small arms pose a constant threat to human security across the world, as backed by a World Health Organisation (WHO) study that stated:

The threat of attack or violence alters social relationships in
communities and changes social behaviours as people are forced to adapt to increased risks as part of their daily lives.

The WHO also found that the existence and spread of small arms had “long term implications… [for the] health, social and psychological development [of] individuals, families, communities and countries”. This finding directly opposes the definition of security, as individuals are forced to change their behaviours in response to threats to their acquired social and emotional values. Small arms are now recognised to be so detrimental to human security that the availability and use of small arms is now recognised as a “Global Health Problem” by the World Health Assembly.

The threat to human development is not the only way in which small arms threaten human security. The availability of small arms also enables other illegal acts to be committed. For example, small arms have played a key role in facilitating genocide, a blatant abuse of human security. This challenge to an individual’s religious, ethnic or political values has been repeated across the world, including places such as Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, Bosnia and Cambodia. In Rwanda alone small arms contributed to the genocide of some 500,000 Rwandans. The perceived threat of nuclear weapons for these people would have been almost none existent. On the other hand, small arms dictated their very lives.

The abundance of small arms in parts of the world continue to threaten the security of individual’s futures, as small arms postpone and divert money away from vital development projects. The existence of armed factions within a state or region can cause an increase in military spending. This spending uses money that could otherwise be spent on developing and protecting the future security of its citizens through healthcare or education. The imminent threat that armed factions pose leaves the population in a state of fear and uncertainty. One should also consider the threat that states themselves can play in threatening the security of their own people through direct military acts or through the police and sponsored gangs. These mediums allow states to manipulate and to challenge the security of its citizens. In Zimbabwe for example, Zanu-PF gangs intimidated and coerced voters before and after their presidential elections, threatening both the physical security of ordinary Zimbabweans and obstructing them from voting freely and fairly (a challenge to their acquired values of democracy).

The availability and possession of substantial arms also makes it possible for national or regional tensions to expand into civil war. An example of this is the Sudanese Civil War. The conflict has killed approximately 400,000 people, although many more civilians have died as a result of starvation and disease. The impact of conflict on human security has been studied by the Red Cross, who found that “the ease of access to small arms increased the risk of civilian deaths substantially”. Without access to small arms, many of these conflicts would be unable to be acted out, securing the safety and security of thousands of people by avoiding death, displacement and damage to a state’s socio-economic development. The Red Cross also concluded that the availability of small arms and their ability to ignite and perpetuate conflict contributed to civilian deaths accounting for 60% of all deaths in modern day warzones.

Alongside their threat to human security, small arms also pose a grave threat to state security. Due to the availability of small arms and a lack of effective weapon constraints, small arms easily and frequently fall into the hands of groups that wish to challenge the recognised authority of the state. One tool for measuring the threat of small arms is to follow the price of an AK 47 assault rifle across world regions. Studies have been conducted in which the price of a rifle is found to correlate with the probability of civil war. Unsurprisingly, where AK 47 assault rifles are plentiful and cheap, the probability of civil war is very high. A study of AK 47 prices found that regions in which civil war had occurred or had the potential to occur averaged a price of $US348, compared to the significantly higher price in low risk regions of $US655. The difference in price highlights the role of small arms in undermining the security of those regions, mainly through a lack of proper arms controls. Without easy access to small arms, it would be very difficult for any group to threaten the security of a state and subsequently the security of its citizens. In comparison, nuclear weapons are subject to high control and scrutiny. They are subject to constant surveillance by neighbouring states, as well as being difficult to procure and operate. This is another reason why small arms pose a greater threat to security than nuclear weapons.

The greatest threat to both human and state security is the threat posed by small arms. They are recognised by many institutions as a primary threat to both human security and an obstacle to socio-economic development. The ease of which small arms can be obtained and their ease of use means that they can be operated by anybody, in almost any environment. In the areas where potential threats to a state’s security are greatest, small arms are cheap and in good supply. In regions where this is the case, civil wars are a common phenomenon, causing mass displacement, famine and disease in their wake. It is recognised that small arms are directly linked to the loss of millions of lives across the globe, as well being responsible for the maiming of millions more, the majority of which are sustained by civilians. Small arms also allow factions within societies to control and manipulate others, threatening citizen’s rights and values through intimidation and violence. It is is for these reasons and the statistics behind them that small arms cause a greater threat to security than nuclear weapons.