Throughout modern history, the interplay of political factors has been integral to both the negotiation and subsequent implementation of agreements specifically designed to control or limit military armaments (Garthoff 1994; Müller 2018). The complex tapestry of international security is woven with threads of cooperation and conflict, and nowhere is this more evident than in the decades-long effort to manage the perils of modern weaponry through negotiated constraint. This endeavor, encompassing both arms control (regulating armaments) and disarmament (reducing or eliminating armaments), represents a continuous struggle to impose political order on the technological momentum and strategic imperatives that drive military competition (Croft 1996; Freedman 2003). On the international stage, arms control negotiations tend to emerge—the ideal conditions often being during periods of heightened global tension, yet typically short of actual or impending warfare between states. As Hedley Bull observed early in the nuclear age, arms control finds its relevance in a specific band of international relations—a point where tension is significant enough to warrant action, “above which it is impossible and beneath which it is unnecessary” (Bull 1961: 75). Indeed, such measures are often deemed superfluous or unnecessary during genuinely tranquil times when states perceive little threat from one another. Conversely, when conflict appears imminent or is already underway, attempts to negotiate limits on weaponry become politically unviable, perceived as excessively dangerous to national security, potentially hindering a state’s ability to defend itself or prosecute a war effectively. Identifying and sustaining this “negotiating space” amidst fluctuating international relations is itself a major political challenge. Furthermore, the very definition of this space is subjective; the perceived level of international tension at any specific moment is not a purely objective reality, and assessments can vary dramatically based on national perspectives, historical experiences, and prevailing political ideologies (Hopmann 2020).