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 others. There are too many to enable anyone to see for

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.