The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better Essay, Research Paper
The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better ??????????? Kenneth Waltz, produces an interesting and semi
compelling argument for the use of Nuclear weapons as a way of maintaining the
peace. There are however problems with Waltz?s argument. One of these can be
explained by the time period in which he made it. While Waltz was writing his
paper the world was a different place. Waltz wrote his paper in nineteen eighty
one, before the fall of the Soviet Union. His scenario is based on a bipolar
world. The framework of a bipolar world did produce in his estimation ?outstandingly
good effects.?[1] Waltz argues
that the bipolar world which he was basing his theory of ?More may be better?
on, makes for as safer world as the two major powers can predict and feel
secure in that they depend mainly on themselves, and can to an extend predict
the actions of the other major power. In the case of the balance between the US
and the USSR, this was fairly accurate on the ?nuclear level. Neither side wanted to reach the point where each
of them would be annihilated as would have been the case in a nuclear war, and
there for this was considered an option only as a option of no return. Waltz
himself however gives the very argument for why his theory will not work within
his own paper. A multipolar world. While Waltz could have made an argument that
may have worked under the conditions of the bipolar world that he wrote his
paper in, the fall of the USSR and the new multipolar world have taken us down
the path which he himself states makes for a more unstable world. ?So long as
the system is one of fairly small numbers, the actions of any of them may
threaten the security of othe
sure what is happening, and too few to make what is happening a matter of
indifference.? ?Second in the great power politics of a multipolar world, who
is a danger to whom, and who can be expected to deal with threats and problems,
are matters of uncertainty.? [2] ??????????? Waltz goes on to a extensive explanation
of his position, and makes some good points that would arguably work under the
conditions of a bipolar world. ?They make the cost of war seem frighteningly
high and thus discourage states from starting any wars that might lead to the
use of such weapons.?[3]
While states should still view nuclear weapons in this way, time has gone on to
show that they do not, and while we have been lucky enough not to have experienced
an nuclear war yet, the attitudes towards the use of nuclear weapons do not
seem to be maintaining that fear towards their use. Waltz?s argument that for
nuclear weapons has lead to more of an unstable world in the post cold war era.
All nuclear weapons have not been accounted for since the fall of the union and
the proliferation of nuclear technology has lead to nuclear weapons ending up
in the hands of more then just the major powers. Nuclear weapons are now a
factor in the bitter dispute between India and Pakistan, and Russia has lowered
the threshold at which they say they will use nuclear weapons in defence. More countries
have nuclear weapons then in the time of Waltz?s writing of this article and
many of the arguments that he makes in favour of nuclear weapons in a bipolar world
have come back to eliminate his claim that more may be better in a multipolar
world. In the case of this argument, time did tell. [1] Waltz, p. 2. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. p. 3.