The Spread of Nuclear Weapons

The book under review is on one of the todays most critical issue The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons in which the two prolific scholars present their opinions regarding the spread of nuclear weapons. First, Kenneth N. Waltz; who is in favor of a slow horizontal nuclear spread than a rapid spread; assumes that the world will be more secure if the states posses nuclear weapons. Secondly, Scott D. Sagan, who is pessimist on the spreading of the nuclear weapons in the world map. He is concerned about the worlds safety; assume that the proliferation of the nuclear weapons among the states will be more horrendous. Both the writers present their views on the Nuclear South Asia as well; where two rivalries India and Pakistan posses nuclear weapons; Scott D. Sagan is concerned about the mutual destruction between these two states and presents many accidents which took place in past and is worried on the consequences of a nuclear war which can happen in future in South Asia. But on the other hand Kenneth N. Waltz is optimist that the nuclear capability between India and Pakistan will cause a highly stabilized South Asia. The deterrence of a mutual destruction will stop the two states to go a nuclear war; which have fought two major wars with conventional weapons. The book is divided in to five chapters, in chapter one Kenneth N. Waltz gives his arguments that the world more may be better with nuclear weapons. In second chapter Scott D. Sagan is disagreed that the world will be more secure with nuclear weapons; he assumes that the world more will be worse having nuclear weapons. In chapter three both the writers see the South Asia with nuclear weapons. In chapter fourth and fifth they respond each other about the role of the nuclear weapons. In short the book is a debate; on what are the likely consequences of the spread of the nuclear weapons?

In the first chapter, Kenneth N. Waltz argues that the international system is anarchic and the most important way in which states can secure their integrity is to depend on them on self-help basis. The economic growth, technological developments, and new military doctrines have made the security of states more complex. According to him if a state goes in a war by conventional means than loses or wins, it does not put state on a major risk but if it goes in a war with nuclear weapons then it will be on equally risk as to that of his enemy, thats way states avoid from a nuclear war. The author says that we have spent a peace nuclear age for fifty years and until now, many states have acquired nuclear weapons. The author does not support the rapid spread of nuclear weapons nor favor non-nuclear proliferation, he is of the opinion that the spread of nuclear weapons would cause regional stability he gives the example of the China and the Soviet Union that had to deal casually with each other after they became nuclear power. It was nuclear deterrence during the cold war that stopped the two major powers [USA&USSR] from a full-scale war. The presences of nuclear weapons make wars hard to start because of retaliation threat [second-strike capability]; it forbids states not to go in wars for minor gains due to mutual destruction.

In the second chapter, Scott D. Sagan present the other side of the issue that a prominent group of scholars, pointed out that the nuclear weapons will stabilize the world in future as that the past half century has been spent calmly and peacefully; according to their view of point the world will be more stabilize when all nations become nuclear armed. But Scott D. Sagan contrasts them arguing that the professional military organizations because of common biases, inflexible routines, and parochial interests,

display organizational behaviors, that are likely to lead to deterrence failure and deliberate or accidental war. He argues that military has been always more eager to use nuclear weapons and it could also be witnessed during the cold war when the US military leadership was giving more options regarding the use of nuclear weapons that were ruled out by civilian personal. Many states have either military run government or weak civilian led governments in which the professional military has a strong and direct influence on policy making. He gives a rational deterrence theory with four operational requirements for a stable nuclear deterrence. First, there must not be a preventive war. Second; there must be a second strike capability. Third; the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons should be avoided and for this purpose, the fourth requirement is that there should be the proper mechanism of safety and security. Many states may behave sensibly but some will not and will than fall by the way side means using their nuclear weapons in this case and thus have vary serious implications for the whole international system. In the end the author suggests that the US should share knowledge to the new nuclear states in order that there an atmosphere of peace could be maintained through cooperation; and the chances of the using of nuclear weapons could be reduced. In the third chapter, Scott D. Sagan further gives a strong argument with his pessimistic perspective and analyzes the nuclearization of South Asia. And says that the emerging nuclear history between India and Pakistan support the pessimistic predictions of organizational theory. The Pakistani nuclear weapons are at the control of the military guards and there is no influence of civilian leaders over the nuclear weapons, which can lead to an irrational use of these weapons. He also highlights the issue of terrorism that could bring both states to the brink of war as it happened after the terrorist attacks on the

Indian parliament. He is of the opinion that US could play a very important role in reducing the tensions between both states in order to avoid a nuclear war in South Asia. Due to geographical proximity, Islamabad and New Delhi can go to a nuclear war in a short time to an accidental war. There are legitimate concerns about social stability and support for terrorists inside Pakistan; problem that could compromise nuclear weapons safety and security. But according to the Kenneth N. Waltz nuclear weapons have brought stability in south Asia. He points out that Scott D. Sagan is concerned about the geographical proximity and the chances of an accidental war between India and Pakistan. The author gives an example from the Cold War era where USSR and US were close at Eastern and Western Germany and hostile China and USSR sharing common border never went to any nuclear accidental war.

In the last two chapters both the authors responds each other. First Kenneth N. Waltz responds to Scott D. Sagan; says that although small incidents of deterrence failures were seen but until now, the deterrence theory has worked better in practical than it was presented as an assumption. He disagree with the assumption that terrorist may use the nuclear weapons; according to him the interests in policy objectives of the terrorists do not allow them to undertake the nuclear weapons even if these are available to them. According his opinion nuclear weapons work more effetely against the outbreak of wars. He looks deterrence that does not depend on retaliation but depend on the fear of retaliation. Where as; the safety and security of new nuclear states is concerned he is off the opinion that it is easer to safeguard a smaller arsenal rather than a larger. He says that the threat comes from the biggest powers and smallest comes from smallest powers.

However Scott D. Sagan does not agree with the Kenneth N. Waltz and says that the proliferation of nuclear weapons will lead to the spread of nuclear weapons into the terrorists hands or to such states where there is a risk of terrorists access to such weapons. The debate between the Scott D. Sagan and the Kenneth N. Waltz is vary hard to conclude because both give justifications and try to prove as each one of them is correct. As we see the nuclear history there has never been use of nuclear weapons(except during Second World War) and in this regard we may hope that there will be no use of nuclear weapons in fearing of a mutual destruction among the states in future and the more nations acquire nuclear weapons the more they would guaranteed their security. On the other hand, we see the looming shadows of the destructive nuclear weapons; which could be used in future and could be cause of mutual destruction. It is vary difficult to reach any conclusion on this critical issue but this book help us to guess what cold be the likely consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons.

Reviewed by: Bajar Ali Submitted to Muhammad Sadiq Dss 2

nd

, QAU Islamabad

27.10.2010