Nuclear Proliferation Argumentative Analysis

I agree with the nuclear optimists that nuclear proliferation will make international politics more stable and less war prone. Since nuclear weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), more specifically as true WMD (Baylis pg 386), I believe states that possess nuclear weapons will be reluctant to use them against states who also possess nuclear weapons, out of the fear those state will retaliate with their own nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons poses risk to a state that chooses to use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear proliferated state. Therefore, by this logic it benefits to a state to be nuclear proliferated as a defensive precaution or a deterrence mechanism. A fundamental component of the proliferation debate revolves around the perceived or alleged efficiency of nuclear deterrence. Proliferation optimists argue that, “more may be better” because nuclear weapons increase the cost of nuclear conflict, ultimately deterring states from engaging in nuclear warfare with a nuclear-armed state (Suzuki 2015). Optimists argue that nuclear deterrence works reliably, thus there seemingly less to be feared from nuclear proliferation and beneficial to a state to
Pessimists argue that the growth of nuclear weapon states will most likely lead to a complex international setting with dangerously unstable tensions between states. Even a simple ignition of a single state can lead to a chain reaction of nuclear attacks ultimately leading to an all-out nuclear world war. I disagree with this claim because no responsible state will launch a nuclear attack against a state possessing nuclear weapons knowing that it will face an immediate nuclear counter threat by the targeted state and its