Some of the most important international arms control agreements follow: today, these requirements are easily achievable for almost all major nations in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Only the reluctance to keep up with the development of nuclear weapons prevents the kind of proliferation that Kennedy and others expected. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is not the only thing that makes the prospect of nuclear proliferation dangerous and generally disgusting, but it is part of the picture. Intergovernmental arms control organizations are as follows: arms control agreements and agreements are often seen as a means of avoiding costly weapons debris that could prove counterproductive to national objectives and future peace. [2] Some are used as a means of halting the proliferation of certain military technologies (such as nuclear weapons or missile technology), in exchange for the assurance given to potential developers that they will not be victims of these technologies. In addition, some arms control agreements are concluded to limit the damage caused by war, especially to civilians and the environment, which is considered bad for all parties involved, regardless of who wins a war. The Industrial Revolution led to an increasing mechanization of warfare and rapid progress in the development of firearms; The increased potential for devastation (later visible on the battlefields of World War I) led Tsar Nicholas II of Russia to gather the heads of 26 nations for the First Hague Conference in 1899. The conference resulted in the signing of the 1899 Hague Convention, which gave rise to rules governing the declaration and conduct of war and the use of modern weapons, and also led to the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Nations can stay in a treaty while trying to break the boundaries of that treaty instead of just pulling out of it. This was for two main reasons.

Openly opposing an agreement, even if one withdraws from it, is often viewed politically in a bad light and can have diplomatic repercussions. If you stay in a deal, the competitors, who are also participatory, can be kept at the limits of the conditions, while the exit frees your opponents to make the same developments that you do, which limits the advantage of this evolution. The development of firearms has led to an increase in the ravages of war. [Citation required] The brutality of wars during this period led to efforts to formalize the rules of war, with humane treatment of prisoners of war or the wounded, as well as rules for the protection of non-combatants and the looting of their property. However, few formal arms control agreements were recorded until the early nineteenth century, with the exception of theoretical proposals and proposals imposed on defeated armies. Scientists and practitioners such as John Steinbruner, Jonathan Dean or Stuart Croft have worked hard to provide theoretical support for arms control. Arms control must break the security dilemma. It aims at mutual security between partners and general stability (whether in a crisis situation, a grand strategy or stability to end an arms race). In addition to stability, arms control is accompanied by reduced costs and damage limitation. .