arn8 race, particularly Che nuclear arns race. They argue thal lhe nucleardeterrence policy pursued by s@e States ranks flrst in their approach to agreementa on diaaroanent., especially to a conprehensive Eest ban treaty, a nuclear weapon.freeze and non-firEt-uae of nuclear reapons. Furthernore, tbey hotal thevieu lhat it algo feeds the arms spiral, in the conventional field and firmlyberieve that deterrence objectively leads to a higher risk of nuclear war and more tensions in lnternational relat.i.ons. fhiE concept of security, Ehey conclude,entails an unprecedented threat to human survival. 30. Som other States, ttlough critical of varlous aspects of the concept of nuclear deterrence, regard it. a8 being the only reliable arrangement against nuctear war at present in operatlon. pending lhe developnent of effecuivecollectlve securily arrangenents and major reductions ln nucLear arns, these statea consider that tt. is important to assist in lhe nainlenance of the systen of nuclear deterrence because of the inportance of the clontribution they consider it nakes tointernatlonal stability. tfithout such stabill!y, tbey consider that arms reduction agreemenls and progresa tof,ard effectlve collective security arrangements nould beinpossible.A/ 40 / 5s3 Eng I ish Page 16 31. Many other Stales, ubictr do rEt lrosgeaa nuclear {eapon8, nay accept conventional deterrence as a neans for achi,evlng national Eecurlgy but have serioua doubts abou! bhe concept of nuclear deterrence. Aa long aa nuclear {eapons exist.national security plannerE nuat devel,op conceptE to guide decisions on nuclear eeaPons, Theae StateE are of the oplnion that nuclear eeaponE do not seEve anyniliEary purpoge and that aa long a€ nuclear atiaarnament is not achieved, any nuclear rreapons concept DuEt assure the avoidance of nuclear uar. These S,taeesquestion the capability of bhe concept of nuclear deterrence to serve thiE purposein the long-tern perEpective. For one lhlng, they argue tha t. nuclear deterrence cannot be nade foolproof. lhe doctrine provides no guarantee again8t irratlonal
**Analysis**
The text appears to be discussing the concept of nuclear deterrence and its implications on international relations, security, and the potential risks of nuclear war. It seems to be a debate between different countries or groups of countries, with some arguing that nuclear deterrence is a necessary evil, while others question its effectiveness and potential consequences. The text also touches on the idea of collective security arrangements and arms reduction agreements.

**Category**
International relations, Security