Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T19:23:32.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: in defense of some optimism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

George H. Quester
Get access

Extract

The spread of nuclear weapons would make the world a much less stable place, and such a spread may be difficult to stop. Yet proliferation is not as yet inevitable.

Several viewpoints are implicitly rejected in this collection. One is that nuclear proliferation would actually be desirable for the world. Another is that such weapons spread is inevitable. Other rejected viewpoints are that such spread can be halted only by a crash program, by a brutal exercise of American national power, or by a substantial surrender of such power.

The international system may indeed hamper a nonproliferation effort in various ways—for example, in a drastic worsening of Soviet-American relations or a major disruption of world oil production.

Yet the most important counter to pessimism about containing proliferation comes from the world's awareness of how bad actual proliferation would be. States which pretend to be indifferent or resigned to such nuclear weapons spread will quietly be making contributions to halting it.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , Winter 1981 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a more elaborate presentation of arguments that nuclear proliferation may not be so undesirable, see Waltz, Kenneth N. “What Will the Spread of Nuclear Weapons Do to the World? in International Political Effects of the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, King, John Kerry, ed. (Washington, U.S.G.P.O., 1979), pp. 165–97.Google Scholar

2 A recent illustration of a resignation to nuclear proliferation as more or less inevitable can be found in Weltman, John J., “Nuclear Devolution and World Order,” World Politics, 32, 2 (01 1980): 169–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Such a view might fairly be ascribed to Wohlstetter, Albert, et al., Swords From Plowshares (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979).Google Scholar

4 The tone of this view is clearly reflected in the analysis of Epstein, William, The Last Chance (New York: The Free Press, 1976).Google Scholar

5 Wohistetter, Albert, “Spreading the Bomb Without Quite Breaking the Rules,” Foreign Policy, 25 (Winter 1976–1977): 88–96, 145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Gallois, Pierre, The Balance of Terror (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961).Google Scholar