More Nuclear Weapons Better?
May more nuclear weapons be better?
To give an answer on whether more nuclear weapons would be better we need first to define what is meant with more and what we consider to be better. Does more refer to the quantity of weapons or the spread of them to more countries? And more importantly, in what ways is a situation with more nuclear weapons better than a situation without or no further increase to what already exists?
Whether one concludes a positive or negative answer to this question the argumentation would benefit if emanating from Kenneth Waltz reasoning, that in 1981 provoked a debate that until this day is engaging scholars and strategists. Waltz’s positive answer to the question stood, and stands, in sharp contrast to the general public understanding that proliferation of nuclear weapons is dangerous and undesirable. The classical debate that Waltz initiated has been focused on whether nuclear weapons create stability or not. Many scholars have acknowledged the need to broaden the focus and taking other factor into account, for example implications nuclear weapons have for economy or environment (Knopf 2004: 42-43). Because of the limit of this paper I will build my argument within the scope of the classical debate in order to answer the question.
Waltz argues that more states with nuclear weapons will have a positive effect on stability in the world. This stems from a realist perspective on the international system and states’ behaviour; assuming that states coexist in a condition of anarchy and that they act rationally. In the anarchic order, self-help is the principle of action, meaning that states help themselves by providing for their own security. In this case self-help refers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As rational actors states wont run major risks for minor gains and thus war becomes less likely when the costs of war rises in relation to possible gains. Waltz therefore concludes that the knowledge of the large-scale destruction
To give an answer on whether more nuclear weapons would be better we need first to define what is meant with more and what we consider to be better. Does more refer to the quantity of weapons or the spread of them to more countries? And more importantly, in what ways is a situation with more nuclear weapons better than a situation without or no further increase to what already exists?
Whether one concludes a positive or negative answer to this question the argumentation would benefit if emanating from Kenneth Waltz reasoning, that in 1981 provoked a debate that until this day is engaging scholars and strategists. Waltz’s positive answer to the question stood, and stands, in sharp contrast to the general public understanding that proliferation of nuclear weapons is dangerous and undesirable. The classical debate that Waltz initiated has been focused on whether nuclear weapons create stability or not. Many scholars have acknowledged the need to broaden the focus and taking other factor into account, for example implications nuclear weapons have for economy or environment (Knopf 2004: 42-43). Because of the limit of this paper I will build my argument within the scope of the classical debate in order to answer the question.
Waltz argues that more states with nuclear weapons will have a positive effect on stability in the world. This stems from a realist perspective on the international system and states’ behaviour; assuming that states coexist in a condition of anarchy and that they act rationally. In the anarchic order, self-help is the principle of action, meaning that states help themselves by providing for their own security. In this case self-help refers to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. As rational actors states wont run major risks for minor gains and thus war becomes less likely when the costs of war rises in relation to possible gains. Waltz therefore concludes that the knowledge of the large-scale destruction