Arms control efforts can easily become counterproductive, and here is why. The dual nature of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is since the line between nuclear deterrence as a political tool for preventing war as a means of warfare is blurred.
After all, any variant of nuclear deterrence is viable if it relies on the material base of nuclear weapons and the readiness to use them per military doctrine, strategy, and operational plans. In the modern world, all states openly support and improve their nuclear weapons for deterrence. At the same time, no weapon system is created for deterrence generally since this is a too broad concept.
The development of all nuclear weapons systems embodies the latest scientific and technical achievements for implementing specific military tasks – the destruction of certain military and civilian objects in the given conflict conditions. At the same time, some technical characteristics of weapons and associated operational plans can increase the likelihood of a military conflict or its escalation.
Now, this is happening under the influence of military development and new strategic concepts of the leading nuclear powers and is aggravated by the growing tension in relations between Russia and the United States.
Nuclear powers often argue that the primary function of nuclear weapons is deterrence. In addition, nuclear deterrence means the threat of destruction of the enemy to prevent an attack from his side.
Preventing hostile action against one’s own country is undoubtedly a legitimate aim. However, the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, given the public’s awareness of the consequences of their use and the fact that deterrence is inevitably doomed to failure, is ethically unbearable.