"SPREAD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, THE" (SCOTT SAGAN & KENNETH WALTZ).   Term Paper ID:24630 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Critical review of collection of opposing views on need for nuclear weapons.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 1 sources, 9 Citations, MLA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Critical review of collection of opposing views on need for nuclear weapons. Paper Introduction: The debate over the production of nuclear weapons began with the announcement of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The power of the weapon and the devastation it wrought frightened many Americans, not for the least reason because they considered what would happen if the weapon were turned on them, but also out of a humanitarian concern for the horror and death the bomb brought to Japan. The arguments have continued on both sides ever since, and even today in the post-Cold War era, the issue remains vital because more and more countries are seeking and achieving atomic capability. Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weaponry to more and more countries, has long been a fear of the U.S. government, and efforts have been made to control the distribution of nuclear materials. Another worry today is that technology has advanced Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The authors begin by noting that this is one of the most criticalinternational issues facing us today, in part because more and more nationsare joining the nuclear club. Actually, such ascenario could be imagined if the leader thought an aggressive act againstan outside enemy would help him in keeping together his internal coalitionor help in countering his enemies, but Waltz does not raise thispossibility. The latter is a particularly troublesome issue.While no such nuclear accidents have yet occurred, the danger has alwaysbeen such that the world has feared it would happen. Waltz. It seems much easier to achieve balance when only two or afew more countries have the bomb, but Waltz finds a form of regionalstability developing as more countries have the bomb. The authors do not argue about who gets thebomb or about how states develop nuclear capability. To see what this spread might meanto us today, Waltz looks to the past for similar circumstances, a logicalapproach, though of limited value when you are talking about nuclearweapons that can annihilate the planet, something no nation or group ofnations could ever accomplish before. Another worry today is that technologyhas advanced to where bombs can be made quite small, and a particularlyfrightening possibility is that terrorists could get their hands onsufficient material to make such a device. Thepower of the weapon and the devastation it wrought frightened manyAmericans, not for the least reason because they considered what wouldhappen if the weapon were turned on them, but also out of a humanitarianconcern for the horror and death the bomb brought to Japan. First, he says they have a severelylimited form of rationality. Sagan notes that the powers thatdeveloped nuclear weapons and that have them today are not the same sortsof nations that would in the future. Waltz essentially takesrecent history as something that would be repeated by other countries asthey develop nuclear weapons, and he thus believes that just as nuclear wardid not happen before, it will not happen in a nuclear future with more andmore players. It did not. Waltz tries to answer Sagan's belief thatcivilian control is safer than military control and seems to undercut hisown arguments by deciding that civilian control is not that safe. Different subunits have different goals and differentstrategies which may also conflict. They ask instead,"What are the likely consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons?"(viii). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. He sees nuclear weapons much as the "hawks" did inamericas past--as a way of having enough power so that no other state woulddare to attack. Yet, Waltz believes that having more countries with nuclearcapability might be better. For one thing, anygiven country has only a few local enemies which they struggle with, and ifall have the bomb, the sort of stability the major powers achieved would bepossible on a smaller scale over and over again. Yet, this view is dependent on certain necessary operationalrequirements that may not prevail: 1) there can be no preventive war duringthe period between when one state has the bomb and another state is onlymoving toward it; 2) both states much have enough bombs to overcome "second-strike" survivability on the other side, meaning no one would start a warwhen survival was zero; and 3) there must be no chance of accidental orunauthorized use (51). Norton, 1995.----------------------- 1 As noted, the book is arranged as a debate, so Waltz answers Sagan,and Sagan rebuts that answer. However, just because it did notin the past is no reason to be certain it will not in the future,especially if less politically and morally stable countries gain the use ofsuch weaponry. Waltz next considers accidents and states that this argument holdsthat the more nuclear weapons there are, the more likely it is that onewill be detonated. Waltz actually begins by considering topicshe did not include in his original argument. Sagan counters by noting an essential flaw in Waltz's argument--Waltzassumes that others are better than we are: He m maintains that other states will do better, will be smarter, will learn more quickly, will, in short, avoid the kinds of errors that we have suffered in the past (116).Sagan's argument remains the stronger one because it assumes that a problemcould develop and so tries to avoid it by preventing every country fromhaving the capability of causing that problem. Governments have to deal with their ownproblems before they can work to develop nuclear weapons, he says. The argument abouteliminating a second-strike force is another Waltz counters by stating thatweak and poor states could manage to deploy second-strike forces quiteeasily. The argumentshave continued on both sides ever since, and even today in the post-ColdWar era, the issue remains vital because more and more countries areseeking and achieving atomic capability. The idea that nuclear weapons should be increased is offered byWaltz, who states first that he prefers to discuss the spread of nuclearweapons because proliferation to date has been vertical, meaning thatnations have added to their stockpile of weapons. They could certainly accomplish that with anuclear weapon. Second, he says that complex organizationshave multiple, conflicting goals, and the process of deciding between themis highly political. The debate over the production of nuclear weapons began with theannouncement of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Work CitedSagan, Scott D. Essentially, Sagan says that it is notpossible to predict the behavior of the new states that would get the bomband that optimism is therefore based on false assumptions and a lack ofcertain knowledge. Many in the future would be ruled bytheir military, and he believes that such leadership has a very differentorganizational culture, one that would be "likely to lead to deterrencefailures and deliberate or accidental war" (48). Sagan also argues that there are good reasons to believe that therestates that will have nuclear armaments in the future will lack "thepositive mechanisms of civilian control" (49) that were effective inpreventing nuclear war in the past, again because of the military culturethat is likely to prevail. Hesays he cannot fathom why a leader fighting factions in his own countrywould use a nuclear weapon against someone else (9-1 ). He sates that small countries are more likely to assurethat their weapons do not go off accidentally because they have more tolose if not in area, then in percentage of the country, Waltz assumes thatthere would be no completely irrational leaders among the world's rulers,but this is not assured. New York: W.W. Hisarguments seem a good deal like whistling in the graveyard--he saysterrorists work in small groups, they live precarious lives, they cannotmaintain pressure over a long period of time, they would prefer to usepoison on a city or some other weapon than a nuclear one, and so on.Again, Waltz is assuming he can develop a clear and effective psychologicalprofile of the terrorist and apply it to the idea of nuclear weapons. This is because at every stage, as a new countrywould join the nuclear club, there was a fear that others would follow andthat disaster would strike. Heconcludes: Terrorists have some hope of reaching their long-term goals through patient pressure and constant harassment. he doesbelieve that generals do not like to fight wars under unfamiliarconditions, which the use of nuclear weapons would be. Waltz is much toooptimistic. Sagan, on the other hand, does worry about the proliferation ofnuclear weapons and does not assume that the danger is past just because noone dropped a bomb after World War II. Sagan refers severaltimes to Waltz and those agreeing with him as "nuclear optimists," andSagan does not see a reason for such optimism, and he has good reasons forhis doubts. Sagan and Kenneth N.Waltz in their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate presentalternating points of view in a debate format to highlight the arguments onboth sides of the issue, whether nuclear weapons are needed to keep othersfrom aggressive acts, or whether the danger is too great and the weaponsshould be destroyed. government, and efforts have been made to control thedistribution of nuclear materials. The argument willtherefore center on horizontal distribution, on other states gaining theability to produce nuclear weapons (1). They cannot hope to do so by issuing unsustainable threats to wreck [sic] great destruction, threats they would not want to execute anyway (96).This is a big leap from the idea that terrorists might make threats and notwant to carry them out, when in fact the short-term goal for terrorists isusually to spread terror. Sagan refers to Waltz's approach as "rational deterrence" theory, atheory that hold that nuclear war would be so costly that no one willundertake it. Scott D. He turns to organization theory to explain those doubts, finding thatlarge organizations function in ways that contribute to accidents,instability, and potential dangers. He argues that the spread of nuclear weapons would be betterthan no spread at all so long as it is gradual--the rapid spread would bemore dangerous. He does look to the more immediatenuclear past and finds evidence that nations have been able to create aform of stability through terror: "Contemplating the nuclear past givesground for hoping that the world will survive if further nuclear powersjoin today's dozen" (8). fist, he discusses terroristsand the possibility that they will gain control of nuclear warheads. He alsosays that nuclear weapons are useless for internal struggles, as occur incountries where the military either protects the leader or seeks tooverthrow the leader. He evidently finds that over a long period of time,countries will develop the ability to hold their weapons and only use themfor saber-rattling. Waltz considers a number of possible worlds, with different levels ofnuclear proliferation and different degrees of local and regionalstability. However, Waltz admits that unstable governmentsmight keep working on nuclear projects started in more stable times. Sagan's view does notassume that we know the psychology of the countries of the world or thatthis psychology would be the same in all places at all times, while Waltzdoes seem to believe that certain patterns are repeated and that we canascertain the probable behavior of every nation that might gain nuclearcapability. There are simply too many elements involved to makesuch assumptions, and it is safer to assume the worst and to avoid nuclearconfrontation by keeping other states from getting the bomb in the firstplace. Nuclear proliferation, or thespread of nuclear weaponry to more and more countries, has long been a fearof the U.S. and Kenneth N. He says first that it is not likely thatnuclear weapons will spread that widely in the immediate future becausemany countries simply cannot develop them that rapidly, either because ofeconomic problems or instability. The most states thathave the bomb, the more likely that it might happen. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.