Armament - Gunbi (English spelling)

Japanese: 軍備 - ぐんび（英語表記）armament

It is used almost in the same sense as military power, and refers to a nation's self-defense or external coercive power. However, when it comes to armaments, in addition to the direct combat capability expressed in the form of an army, such as military strength, weapons, and equipment, it also includes collective elements such as military bases and information systems that support military activities, military production bases, and national power, the character and policies of the government. From there, it is used more broadly, such as rearmament, expansion of armaments, arms control, and disarmament. As a result of wars being fought as total wars since the 20th century, and also with the emergence of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, the arena for the use of military force has exceeded the boundaries of the nation, and the general term armament has become established as a term in security and international politics. Therefore, the relationship between the military, military power, and armaments can be understood as three concentric circles that express the political objectives of a nation as violence, or the use of force, in the arena of international relations. The concept of armaments is the most comprehensive of these.

[Tetsuo Maeda]

Changes in the purpose and meaning of armaments

The purpose of armaments is to demonstrate the will and policy of a nation through military force and to carry out what Prussian military theorist Clausewitz called "violent acts aimed at forcing the enemy to submit to our will" (On War). It is also a means to realize the proposition that "war is nothing but the continuation of politics by means other than those in politics" as he defined it. Its actual content is determined by the contemporary view of war, the level of technology, and the production capacity. In the era when warfare was the "natural state of society" (The Acts of Napoleon), armaments were considered essential to eliminate foreign enemies and to maintain the survival and unity of clans and tribes. In ancient times, the members of a tribe were the combatants, and armaments were mixed into daily life. In Caesar's Gallic Wars, there is a passage that says of a foreign nation, "You may meet us any time. You may know the bravery of the indomitable Germanic people, who have been under our roof for 14 years." As nations grew stronger from ancient times to the Middle Ages and the early international society was formed, a specialized professional organization called the military was born based on aristocrats and mercenaries, and the purpose of armaments also included the acquisition of wealth and territory, such as the display of power by feudal lords and the conquest of colonies. From then on, military power = armaments formed the foundation of various national systems, and based on the just war ideology (Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, etc.) that a just war is legal, it became a legitimate tool for expressing the national will and pursuing national interests.

The 19th century French Revolution changed the nature of military preparation from the "King's Army" to the "People's Army," and spread war to the whole society on a different level than in ancient times. It created a "million-man army" based on conscription, and the emergence of a view of war based on "national ideology" (the sanctity of borders, defense of the homeland, preservation of the national polity) rather than on the survival of tribes or the vanity of the king. Furthermore, the results of the Industrial Revolution that followed the political revolution led to rapid technological innovation in military equipment and weapons (repeating rifles, long-range guns, steamships), and the military strength of a nation was measured not only by the strength of its military, but also by its economic power, science and technology, and national unity. As a result of these two transformations, the concentric structure of the military, military power, and armaments that exists to this day became clear.

[Tetsuo Maeda]

Expansion of military forces and changing views on war

In the 20th century, the scale and intensity of wars expanded, and the meaning of armaments was questioned from various perspectives, including economic rationality, the balance between ends and means, and ethical and humanitarian viewpoints. The two "world wars" made it clear that a war between one or several countries could embroil the entire world in a battlefield. At the same time, the indiscriminate attacks and mass murders using aircraft, submarines, and poison gas weapons that appeared on the battlefields of World War I clearly demonstrated the disappearance of the boundaries between "the front line and the home front" and "combatants and non-combatants." The culmination of this was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. In particular, the increase in the power of weapons during the Cold War was seen as a sign of the possibility of the extinction of humanity through the combination of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and the international community began to seriously question the right of nations to possess armaments in the name of self-defense and to assert the freedom to wage war. No longer are we hearing voices that unconditionally justify the legitimacy of armaments by saying that "war is a continuation of politics." The creation of the United Nations and efforts toward arms control and disarmament reflect this expansion of armaments and the resulting change in the view of war. The United Nations, which was established after World War II, stipulates in its Charter that "All nations shall refrain in any manner from the threat or use of force in their international relations (Article 2, paragraph 4)." This can be considered a milestone in the efforts to outlaw war that had been made since World War I through the establishment of the League of Nations (1920) and the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928).

[Tetsuo Maeda]

Military Dependence and Regulation

It is true that the expansion of the battlefield and the birth of indiscriminate weapons have brought about a major change in humanity's view of war, but this has not put an end to the effectiveness of armaments. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union worked to increase their nuclear arsenals in order to "deter nuclear war," while new countries that joined the international community also possessed military forces in the name of national prestige and territorial preservation, and there are countless examples of excessive military forces leading to the careless use of force. The international community is aware that the meaning of armaments has changed decisively in the 20th century, but it still relies on traditional armaments, and so it can be said that it has entered the new century without being freed from the spell of Clausewitz. However, that does not mean that there has been no progress. In the field of individual weapons, concrete efforts toward arms control are beginning to bear fruit, albeit slowly. Examples include the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (signed in 1987, completed), the Chemical Weapons Convention (signed in 1993, entered into force in 1997), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) (signed in 1996, not yet entered into force), the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines (signed in 1997, entered into force in 1999), and the Convention on Cluster Munitions (signed in 2008). Furthermore, the opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996 as an advisory opinion stating that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international law, particularly humanitarian law," although not legally binding, was a groundbreaking one that called for a shift in arms-dependent thinking. Although the international community was unable to reach an agreement during the 20th century to regard armaments as an outdated relic, efforts toward a "nuclear-free world" were continued in U.S. President Obama's "Prague Speech" (April 2009), and the New START Treaty, which advances START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, 1991), which was concluded during the Cold War, was signed in April 2010. In terms of the regulation of individual weapons, there is also growing international public opinion in favor of banning depleted uranium munitions and white phosphorus munitions, following on from anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs.

[Tetsuo Maeda]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

軍事力military powerとほぼ同じ意味で使われる、国家の自衛もしくは対外強制力。ただし軍備という場合、兵力、兵器・装備など軍隊のかたちに表された直接の戦闘能力のほかに、軍隊活動を支える軍事基地や情報システム、軍事生産基盤、さらに国力や政府の性格や政策を加えた集合的な要素が加わる。そこから派生的に、再軍備rearmament、軍備拡張expansion of armaments、軍備管理arms control、軍備縮小disarmamentといったようにより広く用いられる。20世紀以降の戦争が国家総力戦として戦われるようになった結果、そしてまた核兵器や弾道ミサイルの出現により、軍事力行使の場が国家の領域を超えるようになった兵器革命も手伝って、軍備＝armamentという総称は安全保障や国際政治の用語として定着することとなった。したがって、軍隊・軍事力・軍備の関係は、国家の政治目的を国際関係の場で暴力＝武力行使として表現する、三つの同心円で理解できる。軍備というとらえ方はそのいちばん包括的な概念である。

［前田哲男］

軍備の目的と意味の変遷

軍備の目的は、国家の意志と政策を軍事力によって明らかにし、プロイセンの軍事理論家クラウゼウィッツのいう「敵をしてわれらの意志に屈服せしめることを目的とする暴力行為」（『戦争論』）を実行することにある。かれが定義した「戦争は政治におけるものとは異なる手段をもってする政治の継続にほかならない」という命題実現のための手段でもある。その内実は、同時代の戦争観と技術水準、生産能力によって規定される。戦争行為が「社会における自然の状態」（『ナポレオン言行録』）であった時代には、軍備は、外敵の排除や氏族、部族の存続と一体化を保持するため不可欠のものと考えられた。古代にあっては部族の成員がすなわち戦闘員であり、軍備は日々の生活のなかに混在していた。カエサルの『ガリア戦記』には「いつでもお目にかかろう。14年間も屋根の下に入ったことのない、戦争にもまれた不屈のゲルマン人の武勇を思い知るがよい」という異民族のことばが記されている。古代から中世にかけて国家が強大になり、それらによって初期の国際社会が形成されるようになると、貴族や傭兵(ようへい)を基盤にした軍隊という専門的な職業組織が生まれ、軍備の目的にも封建諸侯の勢力誇示や植民地征服など富と領土の獲得が加わっていった。以降、軍事力＝軍備は国家諸制度の根幹を形づくるものとなり、正義の戦争は合法であるという正戦思想（トマス・アクィナスやグロティウスなど）を根拠にして国家意志の発現と国家利益追求の合法的な道具となる。

　19世紀のフランス革命は、軍備のあり方を「国王の軍隊」から「人民の軍隊」へと転換させ、古代とは違った次元で戦争を社会全体に押し広げた。それは徴兵制に基づく「百万人の軍隊」の創設であり、部族の存続や国王の見栄ではない「民族イデオロギー」（国境の神聖、祖国防衛、国体護持）戦争観の出現である。さらに政治革命に続いた産業革命の成果により、軍隊における装備・兵器の技術的革新（連発銃、長距離砲、蒸気船）も急速に進み、国家の軍事的実力は、軍隊の精強さだけでなく経済力、科学技術、国民統合力などによって計られる時代が到来する。この二つの変革の結果、現代に至る軍隊・軍事力・軍備の同心円構造が明らかになった。

［前田哲男］

軍備の肥大化と戦争観の変化

20世紀になって、戦争の規模と強度がいっそう拡大したことにより、軍備の意味が、経済的合理性、目的と手段の均衡性、倫理的人道的見地など、さまざまな面から問い直されることになった。すなわち二つの「世界大戦」は、一国もしくは数国間の戦争が世界全体を戦場に巻き込むことを現実の光景として現出させ、同時に、第一次世界大戦の戦場に登場した航空機と潜水艦、毒ガス兵器による無差別攻撃と大量殺戮(さつりく)は、「前線と銃後」「戦闘員と非戦闘員」の境界消滅をはっきりと示した。その極致が第二次世界大戦における広島と長崎に対する原子爆弾の投下である。とりわけ、冷戦期に進行した兵器威力の増大は、核兵器と弾道ミサイルの合体による人類絶滅の可能性を予告する事態として受け止められ、ここにおいて国家が自衛権の名の下に軍備を保有し、戦争の自由を主張することへの疑問が国際社会で真剣に論じられるようになった。もはや「戦争は…政治の継続である」と軍備の正当性を無限定で主張する声は聞かれない。国際連合の創設および軍備規制や軍備縮小に向けた取り組みは、こうした軍備の肥大化と、それによってもたらされた戦争観の変化を反映している。第二次世界大戦後に発足した国連は、憲章に「国際関係において、武力による威嚇又は武力の行使を…いかなる方法によるものも慎まなければならない（第2条4）」と定めた。これは第一次世界大戦以降、国際連盟設立（1920）や不戦条約（ケロッグ-ブリアン条約、1928）を通じ試みられてきた戦争違法化の一つの到達点といえる。

［前田哲男］

軍備依存と規制

このように戦場の拡大と無差別兵器の誕生によって人類の戦争観に大きな変化が生じたのは確かだが、しかし、これによって軍備の有効性に終止符が打たれたのでない。冷戦時代、米ソ両国は「核戦争を抑止する」ため核軍備の増強に努めたし、一方、新たに国際社会に加わった国々も国家の威信や領域保全などの名目で軍備を保有し、過剰な軍備が安易な武力の行使に至った例は数えきれない。国際社会は、軍備のもつ意味が20世紀に決定的に変わったことを自覚しながら、なお伝統的な軍備に依存している点で、クラウゼウィッツの呪縛(じゅばく)から解き放たれないまま新世紀を迎えたといえる。とはいえ、前進がないわけではない。個別兵器の分野では緩やかにではあるが軍備規制に向けた具体的な努力が実を結びつつある。「中距離核戦力（INF）全廃条約」（1987年調印、完了）、「化学兵器禁止条約」（1993年調印、1997年発効）、「包括的核実験禁止条約（CTBT）」（1996年調印、未発効）、「対人地雷全面禁止条約」（1997年調印、1999年発効）、「クラスター爆弾禁止条約」（2008年調印）などがその例である。また国際司法裁判所が1996年に勧告的意見として判示した「核兵器の威嚇ないし使用は、国際法とりわけ人道に関する法に反する」という見解は、法的拘束力はないものの、軍備依存思考に転換を迫る画期的なものであった。軍備を時代遅れの遺物とする国際社会の合意は20世紀中に達成できなかったが、「核なき世界」への努力は、アメリカのオバマ大統領の「プラハ演説」（2009年4月）に受け継がれ、冷戦期に結ばれたSTARTⅠ（戦略核兵器削減条約、1991年）を進展させる新START条約が2010年4月に調印された。また、個別兵器規制の面でも、対人地雷やクラスター爆弾に続いて劣化ウラン弾、白リン弾禁止の国際世論が高まっている。

［前田哲男］