The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place. Perceived external threats are hyped by governments and massive increases in military spending are now becoming the norm. This is a perilous throwback to the volatility of the early 20th century when a global arms race and the strengthening of military alliances led directly to World War I.

Military budgets are currently ballooning in NATO countries, and the Asia-Pacific region seems to be following suit. In a recent interview with the BBC, Japan’s defense minister Shinjiro Koizumi spoke of the need to revisit the country’s post-World War II pacifism policy and “strengthen its defense capabilities”. This very much reflects the thinking of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. Since coming to power in October 2025, she has made clear her desire to accelerate the reversal of the country’s post-war pacifist stance, adopting a much more assertive military posture. Commitments have already been made to massively increase defense spending, acquire offensive long-range cruise missiles, invest in new surface-to-ship missiles and unmanned drones, and ease arms export restrictions by permitting the sale of advanced weaponry and warships to allied countries. According to Koizumi, boosting defense, “reinforcing its alliance with the United States, and expanding collaboration with likeminded countries” is part of “building multilayered deterrence critical for ensuring that no new war breaks out in this region”.

This sort of thinking mirrors exactly the false logic of the early 20th century. It assumes that “we are all safer if the perceived enemy knows the strength both of our defensive alliances and our military capacity. Together, these two pillars of our security act as a strong deterrent, making war less likely”.

If only this were true. Unfortunately, history tells us that arming to the teeth and forming “defensive” alliances can have the exact opposite effect to that of deterrence.

In the lead-up to World War I, the twin developments of increased armaments spending and strengthening military alliances were seen as maintaining the balance of power in Europe and thereby guaranteeing peace. In 1907, Britain, France, and Russia signed the Triple Entente, an alliance intended to counter the powerful Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The intention of both sets of alliances was to act as a deterrent, as any aggressor would know that military action would be met by an immediate response from all members of the opposing alliance. The deterrence was strengthened by the fact that both sides were amassing powerful arsenals. Increased military spending, including an Anglo-German naval arms race, meant that no country would dare risk war.

This illusion was tragically exposed by a random event in June 1914, when Serbian nationalists seeking independence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. When Austria-Hungary retaliated by invading Serbia, Russia backed Serbia and the whole alliance system kicked in like clockwork. Germany, as the most powerful member of the Triple Alliance, declared war on Russia in support of its Austrian ally. France and Britain were obliged by the Triple Entente to support Russia. Within days, the alliance system designed to keep the peace had led Europe into all-out war.

The current proliferation of arms, the eastward expansion of NATO, and now the remilitarization of Japan are invariably portrayed as mechanisms to deter aggression and prevent war. The history of 1914 clearly reveals the fallacy of this thinking

A century later, the lessons of World War I seem to have been forgotten by those who blithely assume that having a strong arsenal and a powerful military alliance will guarantee peace. The current proliferation of arms, the eastward expansion of NATO, and now the remilitarization of Japan are invariably portrayed as mechanisms to deter aggression and prevent war. The history of 1914 clearly reveals the fallacy of this thinking. Far from guaranteeing peace, the escalation in military spending and the existence of military alliances can pose a real threat to global stability.

In a nuclear world, the dangers are compounded. At the extreme end, there is the risk of a “first strike” mentality, with one side deciding to obliterate its opponent before any of their missiles can be launched. More likely, however, is the risk of miscalculation in a crisis. If the strength of a perceived enemy’s missile capabilities is so intimidating, it can pressurize the opposing military to keep their own missiles on a hair trigger, ready to be launched immediately, thus increasing the risk of a “mistaken launch”. An accidental Armageddon is far more likely if the world is divided into hostile, heavily armed camps.

A renewed arms race in our nuclear age is plainly something that all nations must try to avoid. The United Nations clearly has a role here, but the US, China, European countries, and now, it seems, Japan should all be willing participants. The rise of nationalism, perceived threats from supposed enemies, the proliferation of arms, and the strengthening of military alliances are all too reminiscent of the events leading up to 1914. History has taught us that the strengthening of defenses, even if intended to act as a deterrent to war, can easily have exactly the opposite effect. All leaders in the world, including Japan’s prime minister and defense minister, would do well to refresh their knowledge of why war erupted in Europe in 1914.

The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.