Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate FROM THE PUBLISHER
If the nuclear balance of terror helped maintain the "long peace" between the United States and the Soviet Union, will the continuing spread of nuclear weapons also help stabilize international relations in this post-cold war age? In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, two major scholars of international politics debate this critical issue. Kenneth Waltz, the dean of neorealist theory in international relations, argues that fears about nuclear proliferation are exaggerated: "More may be better," since new nuclear states will wisely use their weapons to deter other states from attacking. Scott Sagan, the leading proponent of organizational theories of international politics, argues that nuclear proliferation will make the world less stable: "More will be worse," as new nuclear states will lack the organizational structures to ensure safe and rational control of their weapons. The global community has long been fascinated with, and frightened by, nuclear weapons. This short and engaging book will be required reading for citizens and statesmen, as well as scholars and students, as we try to understand the role that nuclear weapons will play in the future world order.
FROM THE CRITICS
Library Journal
Sagan and Waltz, from Stanford and Berkeley, respectively, present a short, intellectual exchange on an often covered topic. Waltz, the optimist, argues that because nuclear weapons "will nevertheless spread," the end result will be stabilizing. His main point is that "nuclear weapons make wars hard to start" and that even radical states will act like rational ones because of the mutually deterrent effort of nuclear weapons. Sagan, the pessimist, fears the worst because of "inherent limits in organizational reliability." The parochial interests of professional military leaders in emerging nuclear states, who will tend to see war as "inevitable" and skeptically view any nonmilitary alternatives, will lead to deterrence failures or accidental war. In addition, Sagan argues these states will probably lack "positive mechanisms of civilian control" to restrain militant tendencies. Waltz and Sagan also offer short essays recapping the main points. For such a short book, there is much to ponder here.-John Yurechko, Georgetown Univ., Washington, D.C.
BookList - Gilbert Taylor
Are more states with nuclear weapons conducive to international stability? Waltz says yes, Sagan no, and they take up the cudgels of their positions in this exceptionally clear distillation of the parameters of proliferation. Sagan concedes that Waltz's rationalist arguments in favor of Pax Atomica have been more coherent than the "Just Say No" school of thought he expresses. But confidence in the rationality and caution of bomb owners, Sagan insists, is undermined by the vulnerability of infant stockpiles to preemptive strikes by a nervous neighbor, as nearly happened in May_ 1990 between Pakistan and India. He also sees aspirant governments as politically volatile, militarily dominated, and unable to construct survivable second-strike forces. Waltz rebuts these worries point by point, often with reference to the behavior of the Americans and the Russians. The crux of these political scientists' disagreement is whether even one bomb would deter a potential attacker: Waltz believes it would, Sagan doesn't. Is it worth the risk to let proliferation run on? Libraries can only furnish information on the question.
Home
