It is true that arms control is majorly concerned with the regulation of the number of weapons that are among the citizens. This can happen by the help of the relevant authorities. These authorities can include administrative officials and the producers of these arms. Arms control was one of the realistic activities that led to stability and peace in USA and Russia. Therefore, I support the assertion that arms control can be enhanced to facilitate economic stability in Iran. This is through diverting the resources that are used in manufacturing the weapons to promote domestic programs and to just governance. Facilitating domestic and political stability is one of the most practical ways of promoting peace and thus there will be no need to apply arms.
There is a huge difference between disarmament and arms control. Arms control simply deals with the regulation of the weapons that are in the public domain for use. On the other hand disarmament is used to describe the forceful extortion of weapons from a certain section of people in for various reasons. This is one of the strategies that is employed by the United States in order to have more power over their political enemies. Therefore, this stamen is consistent with the argument that gun control tries to limit the number of guns whereas disarmament completely aims to eradicate the use of arms.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Arms Control and Disarmament".
Therefore, I agree with the opinion that victory in international political issues is a very complex phenomenon. A good example is the contest between America and Iran. In order for America to achieve their political endeavors, they have to under massive strategic planning. One of this is to disarm Iran completely before progressing their intentions. However, following the massive extremism in Iran along cultural and religious lines, it is true that America has to dedicate a lot of resources including human life.
