What do you think?
Rate this book
The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed
In The Spread of Nuclear A Debate Renewed, professors Waltz and Sagan resume their well-known dialogue concerning nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear war.
Kenneth Waltz, Dean of Realist Theory in international relations at Columbia University, expands on his argument that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Scott Sagan, the leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics, continues to make the counterpoint that "more will be worse": novice nuclear states lack adequate organizational controls over their new weapons, resulting in a higher risk of either deliberate of accidental nuclear war. Treating issues from the ’long peace’ between the United States and Soviet Union made possible by the nuclear balance of the Cold War to more modern topics such as global terrorism, missile defense, and the Indian-Pakistani conflict, The Spread of Nuclear A Debate Renewed is an invaluable addition to any international relations course.
Kenneth Waltz, Dean of Realist Theory in international relations at Columbia University, expands on his argument that "more may be better," contending that new nuclear states will use their acquired nuclear capabilities to deter threats and preserve peace. Scott Sagan, the leading proponent of organizational theories in international politics, continues to make the counterpoint that "more will be worse": novice nuclear states lack adequate organizational controls over their new weapons, resulting in a higher risk of either deliberate of accidental nuclear war. Treating issues from the ’long peace’ between the United States and Soviet Union made possible by the nuclear balance of the Cold War to more modern topics such as global terrorism, missile defense, and the Indian-Pakistani conflict, The Spread of Nuclear A Debate Renewed is an invaluable addition to any international relations course.
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1995
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
June 9, 2015
This is an important book and a great teaching tool for undergraduate classes.
Sagan and Waltz present two opposing views on nuclear weapons. Waltz suggests that the slow spread of nuclear weapons is better than either the rapid spread of nuclear weapons or no spread. Nuclear weapons, he suggests, help stabilize conflicts by creating clarity between conflicting states (each understands the end result of a nuclear attack) and make states risk adverse. Waltz’s analysis, however, is based on rational-actor model that may not hold true in real life. Even Waltz recognizes that reality often bellies what would be considered the rational course of action. The US and the Soviets continued to create nuclear weapons even though, as Waltz argues, a basic survivable deterrent should have been good enough for deterrence. Even for revolutionary powers, Waltz suggests that deterrence holds true—but only as long as the basic rationality of the leaders (even the sub-actors within the system) hold true. Waltz’s contention that nuclear weapons are not credible for extended deterrence of limited interests also seems flawed. How can states be positive what interests are vital and non-vital?
Many of Waltz's arguments are predictable. I found the arguments of Sagan much more counter-intuitive. For some reason, I thought that a constructivist or liberal approach would be the natural counterpoint for Waltz. But Sagan's analysis is grounded in bureaucratic politics and organizational behavior approaches. Approaches that are in some ways as rationalist or more rationalist than Waltz's.
Sagan’s examination of organization theory exposes many of the problems in Walts’s rational-actor model. As Sagan demonstrates three conditions must be met for deterrence to be stable (1) there cannot be a preventive war while one country clearly has the advantage (2) states must develop a second strike capability and (3) and the nuclear force must not be prone to accidental use.
Sagan then looks at how the “bounded rationality” of parochial organizations often limits organizations’ ability to accomplish these three tasks. Some highlights from his analysis are: one, his examination of how the cult of the offensive often gives military organizations an incentive for preventive war; two, the parochial needs of the different military services sometimes limits their ability to build a survivable second-strike capability; and three, the complexity of organizations often lead to issues of unauthorized usage. What is interesting and compelling about Sagan’s policy conclusion is that he suggests that non-proliferation arguments need to be addressed to the various composite actors of the state. Sagan’s final conclusions suggest that, the US should help states become more “rational” in their management of nuclear weapons, but also, that the US and Russia have quite a way to go before they are rational.
The India/ Pakistan conflict demonstrates both Sagan and Waltz’s claims: India and Pakistan have yet to come to a stage of perfect deterrence; both are still vulnerable to counterforce strikes; Pakistan supposedly lost control of its arsenal for a limited time in the Kargil incident; Pakistan still has weak civilian control of its arsenal; and yet, nuclear weapons seem to have tempered the conflict somewhat.
Certainly, there are more perspectives on nuclear conflict than these two. And certainly looks at constructivism, liberalism, and critical approaches would broaden the perspectives of young readers. Still, this thin volume is a great read for undergrads, grad students, and casual readers alike.
Sagan and Waltz present two opposing views on nuclear weapons. Waltz suggests that the slow spread of nuclear weapons is better than either the rapid spread of nuclear weapons or no spread. Nuclear weapons, he suggests, help stabilize conflicts by creating clarity between conflicting states (each understands the end result of a nuclear attack) and make states risk adverse. Waltz’s analysis, however, is based on rational-actor model that may not hold true in real life. Even Waltz recognizes that reality often bellies what would be considered the rational course of action. The US and the Soviets continued to create nuclear weapons even though, as Waltz argues, a basic survivable deterrent should have been good enough for deterrence. Even for revolutionary powers, Waltz suggests that deterrence holds true—but only as long as the basic rationality of the leaders (even the sub-actors within the system) hold true. Waltz’s contention that nuclear weapons are not credible for extended deterrence of limited interests also seems flawed. How can states be positive what interests are vital and non-vital?
Many of Waltz's arguments are predictable. I found the arguments of Sagan much more counter-intuitive. For some reason, I thought that a constructivist or liberal approach would be the natural counterpoint for Waltz. But Sagan's analysis is grounded in bureaucratic politics and organizational behavior approaches. Approaches that are in some ways as rationalist or more rationalist than Waltz's.
Sagan’s examination of organization theory exposes many of the problems in Walts’s rational-actor model. As Sagan demonstrates three conditions must be met for deterrence to be stable (1) there cannot be a preventive war while one country clearly has the advantage (2) states must develop a second strike capability and (3) and the nuclear force must not be prone to accidental use.
Sagan then looks at how the “bounded rationality” of parochial organizations often limits organizations’ ability to accomplish these three tasks. Some highlights from his analysis are: one, his examination of how the cult of the offensive often gives military organizations an incentive for preventive war; two, the parochial needs of the different military services sometimes limits their ability to build a survivable second-strike capability; and three, the complexity of organizations often lead to issues of unauthorized usage. What is interesting and compelling about Sagan’s policy conclusion is that he suggests that non-proliferation arguments need to be addressed to the various composite actors of the state. Sagan’s final conclusions suggest that, the US should help states become more “rational” in their management of nuclear weapons, but also, that the US and Russia have quite a way to go before they are rational.
The India/ Pakistan conflict demonstrates both Sagan and Waltz’s claims: India and Pakistan have yet to come to a stage of perfect deterrence; both are still vulnerable to counterforce strikes; Pakistan supposedly lost control of its arsenal for a limited time in the Kargil incident; Pakistan still has weak civilian control of its arsenal; and yet, nuclear weapons seem to have tempered the conflict somewhat.
Certainly, there are more perspectives on nuclear conflict than these two. And certainly looks at constructivism, liberalism, and critical approaches would broaden the perspectives of young readers. Still, this thin volume is a great read for undergrads, grad students, and casual readers alike.
September 10, 2012
The book does a good job in presenting the two main schools of thought on the issue of nuclear proliferation: the nuclear optimist and the nuclear pessimist. If I were to take issue with one aspect of the book, at times the authors made assertions without the necessary factual backing- often relying on one isolated instance to prove his point. One author in particular made continual use of an argumentation fallacy, that because something hasn't happened, it therefore can never happen. A bit stressful to say the least.
Otherwise it is an excellent resource for an introductory grounding in the nuclear proliferation debate.
Otherwise it is an excellent resource for an introductory grounding in the nuclear proliferation debate.
December 11, 2022
This book goes through arguments about whether new nuclear weapon states would be bad or not-so-bad. Both authors present views through the lenses of civilian control, nuclear terrorism, missile defense, and others. It's a good book for classwork--read the arguments, establish your position, and write a paper. For the casual reader, find articles that summarize their positions in a couple dozen pages.
My mediocre rating is because I don't like Sagan's tone and am getting fatigued of nuclear academics hand-picking recycled Cold War arguments.
My mediocre rating is because I don't like Sagan's tone and am getting fatigued of nuclear academics hand-picking recycled Cold War arguments.
August 6, 2007
A brilliant classic on foreign policy suggestions for an increasingly nuclear world. The world will probably have more countries achieve nuclear technology, already 60 years old, around the same age as your microwave.
Would love to chat about it anytime.
Would love to chat about it anytime.
July 3, 2026
This book is about one of today’s most critical international issues, the spread of nuclear weapons. This is book’s third edition which was published in 2003, it encompasses the case study of India-Pakistan nuclear weapons as Kenneth Waltz argues that the spread of nuclear weapons in South Asia will create a deterrence and will halt the future wars (long or continue wars, though skirmishes are possible as May 2025 skirmishes between India-Pakistan) and Scott Sagan argues the opposite. This book is based on an enduring debate over the spread of nuclear weapons in the world, two scholars Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan are part of this debate. Kenneth Waltz a realist, he argues optimistically (more may/will be better) about the spread of nuclear weapons and Scott Sagan a liberal, he argues pessimistically (more may/will be worse) about the spread of nuclear weapons.
Kenneth Waltz argues that the spread of nuclear weapons has been exaggerated, more may be better since new nuclear states will use their weapons to deter other countries from attacking them. He argues that in a conventional world one is uncertain about winni9ng or losing and in a nuclear world one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated. The unconditional surrender of a nuclear nation cannot be demanded, nuclear weapons affect the deterrence as well as the deterred. Though in a conventional competition, one state’s military buildup often encourages others to do the same, making competition difficult to avoid. However, among nuclear states, this dynamic does not necessarily apply, if neither side can realistically achieve a successful first strike, deterrence becomes the dominant logic, under such conditions, the importance of gaining relative military advantage declines, because the destructive power of nuclear weapons makes deterrence more significant than superiority (e.g., the Cold War nuclear rivalry between the USA and the USSR).
Waltz believes that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future, he argues this on the basis of his three arguments. First, international politics is self-help system, and such systems the units (states) determine their own fate, the fate of other parties, and the fate of the system and this will continue to be so. Second, Waltz believes that nuclear weapons make miscalculation difficult because it is hard to be aware of how much damage a small number of warheads can do. When the active use of force threatens to bring great losses, war becomes less likely such as the nuclear weapons reduced the chances of war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Third, new nuclear states will feel the constraints that present states have experienced. New nuclear states will be more concerned of their safety and more mindful of dangers than some of the old ones have been.
According to Scott Sagan, nuclear weapons are a source of trouble because states are not always rational, organizations are imperfect, and political leaders make mistakes. Thus, the proliferation of nuclear arms poses the threat of disaster, not of peace. Sagan argues that Waltz assumes that new nuclear powers will tightly regulate their nuclear forces in order to be safe from retaliation, which may well be incorrect. There are conflicting pressures for new nuclear states. They have an incentive to put them on high alert and to give them the authority to respond with nuclear weapons after an initial attack, but that makes them more vulnerable to a mishandled or misinterpreted use of nuclear weapons. Sagan contends that as the proliferation of nuclear arms spreads nuclear materials and technology, it raises the threat of theft and nuclear terrorism. The more risks of nuclear proliferation, the more security risks, and the more security risks, the more it is crucial to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons for international stability.
It is a debate over the question: Are nuclear weapons are mainly instruments of peace through deterrence or source of danger as a result of human and organizational failure? It is indeed an enduring discussion on the nuclear proliferation.
Kenneth Waltz argues that the spread of nuclear weapons has been exaggerated, more may be better since new nuclear states will use their weapons to deter other countries from attacking them. He argues that in a conventional world one is uncertain about winni9ng or losing and in a nuclear world one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated. The unconditional surrender of a nuclear nation cannot be demanded, nuclear weapons affect the deterrence as well as the deterred. Though in a conventional competition, one state’s military buildup often encourages others to do the same, making competition difficult to avoid. However, among nuclear states, this dynamic does not necessarily apply, if neither side can realistically achieve a successful first strike, deterrence becomes the dominant logic, under such conditions, the importance of gaining relative military advantage declines, because the destructive power of nuclear weapons makes deterrence more significant than superiority (e.g., the Cold War nuclear rivalry between the USA and the USSR).
Waltz believes that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future, he argues this on the basis of his three arguments. First, international politics is self-help system, and such systems the units (states) determine their own fate, the fate of other parties, and the fate of the system and this will continue to be so. Second, Waltz believes that nuclear weapons make miscalculation difficult because it is hard to be aware of how much damage a small number of warheads can do. When the active use of force threatens to bring great losses, war becomes less likely such as the nuclear weapons reduced the chances of war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Third, new nuclear states will feel the constraints that present states have experienced. New nuclear states will be more concerned of their safety and more mindful of dangers than some of the old ones have been.
According to Scott Sagan, nuclear weapons are a source of trouble because states are not always rational, organizations are imperfect, and political leaders make mistakes. Thus, the proliferation of nuclear arms poses the threat of disaster, not of peace. Sagan argues that Waltz assumes that new nuclear powers will tightly regulate their nuclear forces in order to be safe from retaliation, which may well be incorrect. There are conflicting pressures for new nuclear states. They have an incentive to put them on high alert and to give them the authority to respond with nuclear weapons after an initial attack, but that makes them more vulnerable to a mishandled or misinterpreted use of nuclear weapons. Sagan contends that as the proliferation of nuclear arms spreads nuclear materials and technology, it raises the threat of theft and nuclear terrorism. The more risks of nuclear proliferation, the more security risks, and the more security risks, the more it is crucial to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons for international stability.
It is a debate over the question: Are nuclear weapons are mainly instruments of peace through deterrence or source of danger as a result of human and organizational failure? It is indeed an enduring discussion on the nuclear proliferation.
October 22, 2018
1. Nuclear proliferation has remained an important topic for debate since US used atom bomb in Japan in 1945 to end WWII. The question whether or not the nuclear proliferation is in the interest of international system for a more peaceful, secure world has been part of intellectual discourse since the world witnessed the power of nuclear capability in second world war as well as the cold war. In first four chapters of the book, two US theorists of international relations, Kenneth N. Waltz and Scott D. Sagan debate on the issue where they use contemporary IR thought and theory to examine why states would want to pursue a nuclear weapons development program and the political consequences this might have from both a regional and global perspective.
2. Waltz is a neorealist and principally believes that in the international system, states exist in complete anarchy, distrust is commonplace and the international system is built upon the fundamental idea of “self help”. That means states have to create their own individual security to protect against internal and external threats because they can never rely on other states for protection. Waltz believes in ‘Rational Deterrence Theory’ (RDT) and defines deterrence as a doctrine that “stops people doing something by frightening them. Not just for defence but dissuading a state out of attacking because the expected reaction of the opponent may result in one’s severe punishment”. His belief in a strong defence to deter an attack is underpinned with the notion that the action will be strongly punished against by the defending state. He simply assumes no state would ever attempt an action that cancels out the potential gains from it. Thus supports nuclear proliferation because the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) makes nuclear war impossible or at least preventable. The other factor of RDT is the notion of ‘second strike’ capability which means a state can still respond with a nuclear strike against an enemy after having absorbed a massive attack. This notion of MAD leads to the conception of MAD which means nuclear destruction of both the belligerents. However, Waltz cautions that nuclear weapons can only be possessed and safely controlled by states that have strong leadership over its citizens whereby minimum chances of a coup.
3. As much optimistic Waltz appears in first chapter of the book, “More may be better”, Sagan seems pessimistic in chapter two “More will be worse” as he draws attention to military proclivities in favor of preventive war that could encourage use of nuclear weapons. He argues that the military are solely focused upon military victory which “means defeating the enemy in a narrow military sense, but does not necessarily mean achieving broader political goals in war.” Sagan looks at nuclear proliferation from organizational approach, “military bureaucracies, like other organizations are usually interested in having more resources: they want more weapons, more men in uniform, more of the budget pie.” Sagan believes that the cost benefit logic of the total destructive nature of nuclear war cannot be relied upon to prevent conflict in the future in contrary to what Waltz believes and that this can be used as a positive force for peace. “Nuclear weapons are not controlled by states or statesmen; they are controlled by organizations,” Sagan adds. According to Sagan, organizations have biases and parochial interests where if they are not strongly controlled by a civilian institution can potentially lead to deterrence failures.
4. Pakistan and India’s case has been discussed at length in chapter 5. Both the countries tested and declared their nuclear capability in May 1998. India first acquired nuclear capability Sagan believes that future Indian-Pakistani crises may be nuclear as once countries have nuclear weapons any confrontation that occurs would be a nuclear one. As nuclear weapons make crises stable it may be said that the two belligerents are better off with them rather without them. Waltz supports his argument through the examples of Kargil crises 1999, Pak-India stand off 2001-2 and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s 2008 Mumbai attacks. In case of Kargil both belligerents exercised caution not to escalate the situation to an extent warranting use of nuclear weapons, though Pakistan took initial steps to alert its nuclear forces. During escalation 2001-2, besides having two large armies standing eyeball to eyeball, no single bullet fired from either side. Similarly India’s restrained response following Mumbai attacks suggests that nuclear weapons do indeed have the stabilizing effects. However, Sagan is concerned about military dominance in Pakistan which in his view may tempt to use nuclear option at an early stage in a conflict due certain organizational mindset.
5. Chapter 6 discusses Iran, Iraq and North Korea in view of acquiring nuclear weapons, advantages, disadvantages with the lens of the two theorists. Both give strong arguments in support of their respective theories. In Waltz’s opinion, US should not had gone into war with Iraq in 2003 as Saddam deliberately created an impression that he was acquiring a deterrent although he was not. Even a nuclear armed Iraq did not pose a threat to US. It was no match with a GDP of only $20 billion compared to US having defense budget of nearly $400 billion. Saddam Hussain was only interested in exploiting the deterrence of nuclear weapons rather than ability to use them. Sagan argues that Saddam without nuclear weapons attacked Iran in 1980, invaded Kuwait in 1990 and launched missile strikes against Israel in 1991; thus it’s difficult to assume that Saddam with nuclear weapons would have behaved more cautiously. North Korea, in the absence of a true peace treaty with US, having declared among ‘axis of evil’ and in the given regional and international scenario could not resist continuing with its nuclear program. In view of incidents like sinking of a South Korean ship Cheonon in 2010 and shelling on Yeonpyeong, a pessimist argument here is that “why DPRK , which has been quite aggressive when weak, will suddenly become more cautious when strong?” As far as Iran is concerned, Waltz assumes it “would behave cautiously, the way that Cold War adversaries did once they got nuclear weapons.” However Sagan’s major concerns about Iran are, one, wrt his organizational theory, two, it may cause nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
6. Chapter 7 carries debate on the topic “Is nuclear zero the option?” Sagan opines that “if there are more nuclear nations, and more atomic weapons in global arsenals, there will be more opportunities for terrorists to steal or buy the bomb.” He quotes few examples from history to support his view. “Islamic jihadis, left-wing radicals, and apocalyptic cults have all tried to obtain nuclear weapons.” Waltz, on the other hand, give credit to the nukes for causing sixty-seven years of peace in the world. He goes on saying “those who like peace should love nuclear weapons.”
7. The debate is quite interesting and has been the subject of academic discourse since 1945. Nuclear proliferation endangers international security and unnecessarily increases tension within regions and has the potential for large scale wars among states. Waltz believes the gradual spread of nuclear weapons has not caused an open invitation for states to start developing their own military programs but fact remains that any state that considers nuclear capability necessary for its survival would be going to achieve it at any cost. Whereas there are those countries which despite having capacity do not opt to achieve the nuclear capability. Waltz presents very strong argument based on real time examples from international relations; however I tend to agree with Sagan. Further proliferation will increase the chances of success of terrorists to have control of at least few tactical nuclear war heads. It would be foolish to assume that the spread of nuclear weapons can lead to increased global safety from war and that international security as a whole would be better. A contemporary example to support my argument is the prevailing gun culture in the US that every now and then we hear an incident of sporadic firing on children or innocent citizens. US being the only super power has now great responsibility to not only contain nuclear proliferation across the globe but also to move ahead with the disarmament drive while leading through example. Smaller countries, if given credible security assurances along with lucrative economic incentives may too abandon their nuclear programs for a better world.
2. Waltz is a neorealist and principally believes that in the international system, states exist in complete anarchy, distrust is commonplace and the international system is built upon the fundamental idea of “self help”. That means states have to create their own individual security to protect against internal and external threats because they can never rely on other states for protection. Waltz believes in ‘Rational Deterrence Theory’ (RDT) and defines deterrence as a doctrine that “stops people doing something by frightening them. Not just for defence but dissuading a state out of attacking because the expected reaction of the opponent may result in one’s severe punishment”. His belief in a strong defence to deter an attack is underpinned with the notion that the action will be strongly punished against by the defending state. He simply assumes no state would ever attempt an action that cancels out the potential gains from it. Thus supports nuclear proliferation because the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) makes nuclear war impossible or at least preventable. The other factor of RDT is the notion of ‘second strike’ capability which means a state can still respond with a nuclear strike against an enemy after having absorbed a massive attack. This notion of MAD leads to the conception of MAD which means nuclear destruction of both the belligerents. However, Waltz cautions that nuclear weapons can only be possessed and safely controlled by states that have strong leadership over its citizens whereby minimum chances of a coup.
3. As much optimistic Waltz appears in first chapter of the book, “More may be better”, Sagan seems pessimistic in chapter two “More will be worse” as he draws attention to military proclivities in favor of preventive war that could encourage use of nuclear weapons. He argues that the military are solely focused upon military victory which “means defeating the enemy in a narrow military sense, but does not necessarily mean achieving broader political goals in war.” Sagan looks at nuclear proliferation from organizational approach, “military bureaucracies, like other organizations are usually interested in having more resources: they want more weapons, more men in uniform, more of the budget pie.” Sagan believes that the cost benefit logic of the total destructive nature of nuclear war cannot be relied upon to prevent conflict in the future in contrary to what Waltz believes and that this can be used as a positive force for peace. “Nuclear weapons are not controlled by states or statesmen; they are controlled by organizations,” Sagan adds. According to Sagan, organizations have biases and parochial interests where if they are not strongly controlled by a civilian institution can potentially lead to deterrence failures.
4. Pakistan and India’s case has been discussed at length in chapter 5. Both the countries tested and declared their nuclear capability in May 1998. India first acquired nuclear capability Sagan believes that future Indian-Pakistani crises may be nuclear as once countries have nuclear weapons any confrontation that occurs would be a nuclear one. As nuclear weapons make crises stable it may be said that the two belligerents are better off with them rather without them. Waltz supports his argument through the examples of Kargil crises 1999, Pak-India stand off 2001-2 and Lashkar-e-Taiba’s 2008 Mumbai attacks. In case of Kargil both belligerents exercised caution not to escalate the situation to an extent warranting use of nuclear weapons, though Pakistan took initial steps to alert its nuclear forces. During escalation 2001-2, besides having two large armies standing eyeball to eyeball, no single bullet fired from either side. Similarly India’s restrained response following Mumbai attacks suggests that nuclear weapons do indeed have the stabilizing effects. However, Sagan is concerned about military dominance in Pakistan which in his view may tempt to use nuclear option at an early stage in a conflict due certain organizational mindset.
5. Chapter 6 discusses Iran, Iraq and North Korea in view of acquiring nuclear weapons, advantages, disadvantages with the lens of the two theorists. Both give strong arguments in support of their respective theories. In Waltz’s opinion, US should not had gone into war with Iraq in 2003 as Saddam deliberately created an impression that he was acquiring a deterrent although he was not. Even a nuclear armed Iraq did not pose a threat to US. It was no match with a GDP of only $20 billion compared to US having defense budget of nearly $400 billion. Saddam Hussain was only interested in exploiting the deterrence of nuclear weapons rather than ability to use them. Sagan argues that Saddam without nuclear weapons attacked Iran in 1980, invaded Kuwait in 1990 and launched missile strikes against Israel in 1991; thus it’s difficult to assume that Saddam with nuclear weapons would have behaved more cautiously. North Korea, in the absence of a true peace treaty with US, having declared among ‘axis of evil’ and in the given regional and international scenario could not resist continuing with its nuclear program. In view of incidents like sinking of a South Korean ship Cheonon in 2010 and shelling on Yeonpyeong, a pessimist argument here is that “why DPRK , which has been quite aggressive when weak, will suddenly become more cautious when strong?” As far as Iran is concerned, Waltz assumes it “would behave cautiously, the way that Cold War adversaries did once they got nuclear weapons.” However Sagan’s major concerns about Iran are, one, wrt his organizational theory, two, it may cause nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
6. Chapter 7 carries debate on the topic “Is nuclear zero the option?” Sagan opines that “if there are more nuclear nations, and more atomic weapons in global arsenals, there will be more opportunities for terrorists to steal or buy the bomb.” He quotes few examples from history to support his view. “Islamic jihadis, left-wing radicals, and apocalyptic cults have all tried to obtain nuclear weapons.” Waltz, on the other hand, give credit to the nukes for causing sixty-seven years of peace in the world. He goes on saying “those who like peace should love nuclear weapons.”
7. The debate is quite interesting and has been the subject of academic discourse since 1945. Nuclear proliferation endangers international security and unnecessarily increases tension within regions and has the potential for large scale wars among states. Waltz believes the gradual spread of nuclear weapons has not caused an open invitation for states to start developing their own military programs but fact remains that any state that considers nuclear capability necessary for its survival would be going to achieve it at any cost. Whereas there are those countries which despite having capacity do not opt to achieve the nuclear capability. Waltz presents very strong argument based on real time examples from international relations; however I tend to agree with Sagan. Further proliferation will increase the chances of success of terrorists to have control of at least few tactical nuclear war heads. It would be foolish to assume that the spread of nuclear weapons can lead to increased global safety from war and that international security as a whole would be better. A contemporary example to support my argument is the prevailing gun culture in the US that every now and then we hear an incident of sporadic firing on children or innocent citizens. US being the only super power has now great responsibility to not only contain nuclear proliferation across the globe but also to move ahead with the disarmament drive while leading through example. Smaller countries, if given credible security assurances along with lucrative economic incentives may too abandon their nuclear programs for a better world.
July 7, 2025
This book deserves its subtitle. The debate about the spread of nuclear weapons, its causes, effects and about the policies to be used is enduring. Everyone can watch today a new round, with the more or less foreseeable Israeli and American bombings of Iran`s facilities. Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz represented the two poles of this controversy and the result is a very thoughtful dialogue, something rare in our days. I recommend it to the reader interested in international politics and even more, to anyone who wants to see how a reasonable conversation should be pursued.
A strike against Iran`s nuclear facilities was debated for ages. What held it back were the doubts about its effectiveness and long-term effects. The Spread… discusses it as a side-note of a greater debate about nuclear weapons, how to understand international relations and especially about the drivers of state and other actors in this arena. Kenneth Waltz argued from a very strong neorealist position and Scott Sagan invoked domestic factors, in a series of articles, commentaries and replies, which comprise the bulk of this book.
At least since 1970-1980s, Kenneth Waltz was the main representative of scholars who viewed nuclear proliferation with detachment and accepted, even promoted, a limited form of proliferation, if security guarantees were unavailable. Many times, he has argued that the reality of nuclear deterrence means that the spread of these weapons will not cause a major disaster, because the states are pragmatic, the costs are so high, that the new holder will be inhibited from using them, except as a warning against catastrophe. In The Spread…, he listed several reasons: nuclear weapons limit escalation of conventional fighting, they encourage prudence, they make holding territory less relevant, they signal resolution and they are resilient to technological change.
On the other side of this debate, Scott Sagan relied on organization theory to argue that war may happen by miscalculation or accident. The states are not rational and unitary actors, but coalitions of sometimes divergent groups and organizations, each with its own identity, rules and procedures, which may be especially problematic in states with unstable political regimes. In The Spread…, he emphasized several characteristics of military organizations, defined as professional corps, such as the tendency to favor offensive at decisive actions and the focus strictly on the problem at hand. Three specific issues follow, for Scott Sagan: the risk of preventive war by an outside state, the new arsenal`s lack of credibility and the handling of weapons at peace.
The authors avoided drawing any conclusion and most of The Spread…… contains arguments and counters to these two basic perspectives, producing a very popular book, here at its third edition. The academic literature tends today towards a combination of these two positions, as witnessed by Vipin Narang`s Seeking the Bomb: Strategies of Nuclear Proliferation. Both authors rely on theoretical assumptions and the empirical support is not conclusive, something unavoidable when speaking about nuclear weapons. Scott Sagan`s opinions are closer to contemporary mainstream views of proliferation, while Kenneth Waltz`s views are neighboring the ones held today by the academic critics of the strike against Iran like Robert Pape and Ted Postol.
A strike against Iran`s nuclear facilities was debated for ages. What held it back were the doubts about its effectiveness and long-term effects. The Spread… discusses it as a side-note of a greater debate about nuclear weapons, how to understand international relations and especially about the drivers of state and other actors in this arena. Kenneth Waltz argued from a very strong neorealist position and Scott Sagan invoked domestic factors, in a series of articles, commentaries and replies, which comprise the bulk of this book.
At least since 1970-1980s, Kenneth Waltz was the main representative of scholars who viewed nuclear proliferation with detachment and accepted, even promoted, a limited form of proliferation, if security guarantees were unavailable. Many times, he has argued that the reality of nuclear deterrence means that the spread of these weapons will not cause a major disaster, because the states are pragmatic, the costs are so high, that the new holder will be inhibited from using them, except as a warning against catastrophe. In The Spread…, he listed several reasons: nuclear weapons limit escalation of conventional fighting, they encourage prudence, they make holding territory less relevant, they signal resolution and they are resilient to technological change.
On the other side of this debate, Scott Sagan relied on organization theory to argue that war may happen by miscalculation or accident. The states are not rational and unitary actors, but coalitions of sometimes divergent groups and organizations, each with its own identity, rules and procedures, which may be especially problematic in states with unstable political regimes. In The Spread…, he emphasized several characteristics of military organizations, defined as professional corps, such as the tendency to favor offensive at decisive actions and the focus strictly on the problem at hand. Three specific issues follow, for Scott Sagan: the risk of preventive war by an outside state, the new arsenal`s lack of credibility and the handling of weapons at peace.
The authors avoided drawing any conclusion and most of The Spread…… contains arguments and counters to these two basic perspectives, producing a very popular book, here at its third edition. The academic literature tends today towards a combination of these two positions, as witnessed by Vipin Narang`s Seeking the Bomb: Strategies of Nuclear Proliferation. Both authors rely on theoretical assumptions and the empirical support is not conclusive, something unavoidable when speaking about nuclear weapons. Scott Sagan`s opinions are closer to contemporary mainstream views of proliferation, while Kenneth Waltz`s views are neighboring the ones held today by the academic critics of the strike against Iran like Robert Pape and Ted Postol.
April 16, 2024
I went into this book after having read some of Waltz's previous work, and was expecting to remain convinced by the nuclear optimist position. However, after a thorough couple of reads, I came out of this book knowing a lot more about the consequences of nuclear proliferation, yet feeling a lot less confident in my own position. Waltz sets out the classic argument of many neorealists, arguing that because nuclear weapons effectively shift the offence-defence balance strongly toward the defence, a rational actor would be deterred from a first strike, averting a nuclear catastrophe. On the other hand, Sagan presents his pessimistic argument from the purview of organisational theory, and posits that the high complexity and tight coupling of nuclear weapons systems works against the optimistic predictions of deterrence theory. On balance, I still feel more convinced by the strategic logic that Waltz presents, but it is important that the issues presented by Sagan are addressed by the United States and other great powers in the decades to come.
June 8, 2024
Wait this was a textbook for my summer class and i really was only supposed to read 2 chapters but I read the whole damn book bc it absolutely gripped me. Great writers the two of them, with awesome arguments. Both. Both also made some questionable statements at one point or another, but by golly I’m rendered unsure of where to stand on the debate of nuclear (non)proliferation.
November 23, 2023
Scott Sagan and Kenneth are brilliant authors. They are both at the top of the field of this debate and both have brilliant, well informed theories and ideas. Highly recommend for anyone looking to learn more about the subject.
April 24, 2025
The book made me reconsider my position more than I had anticipated—but I landed at the same conclusion. Not because of the war-deterring effects of nuclear weapons, but because of, what I believe to be, the additional peace-deterring effects of nuclear weapons.
Would recommend the book.
Would recommend the book.
July 15, 2017
I really enjoyed this book. It is a remarkably interesting debate that challenges ideas of politics, people, and humankind.
January 16, 2018
Brilliant book. Side with Sagan.
April 4, 2019
This book is the best example of how two different points of view lead to different interpretations and different policy implementations. I enjoyed reading it!
March 31, 2025
It was interesting to read these two theories side by side. I don’t know which one makes more sense to me because they each put forth good points and reasoning.
July 12, 2025
sagan clears
September 3, 2025
Vrij academisch boek. Op zich prima. Maar na eerste en tweede hoofdstuk ben je wel mee met de beide visies. Hoofdstukken daarna zijn wat herkauwend.
October 27, 2025
i'm just not built for this i fear but i have much respect for the authors!! genuinely very interesting even if it was testing me and my patience
April 10, 2026
A good introduction to both sides of the nuclear weapons debale.
October 29, 2026
Sagan’s an idiot, Waltz is logically coherent even if I disagree with him. So like 0 stars for Sagan, 4 stars for Waltz, averaging out to my rating.
June 28, 2011
The book 'The Spread of Nuclear Weapons' presents two sides of the debate on whether the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries is better or worse in terms of a nuclear weapon going off somewhere in the world. Kenneth Waltz argues that the spread will lead to nuclear stability, and Scott Sagan argues the opposite. Waltz makes use of realist theory, which basically says that logically any leader of a country that has a nuclear weapon will have every incentive to have total control over the nuclear arsenal and will not thoughtlessly launch such weapons. Furthermore, because it can be very difficult to ascertain the nuclear capabilities of adversaries well enough, countries will be very careful in considering a nuclear attack lest they be annihilated in return. The fact that no nuclear exchange has ever taken place despite the spread of nuclear weapons during the Cold War and that there have been no major wars since World War II is used as evidence that the spread of nuclear weapons is more conducive to stabilizing international peace than not. Sagan makes use of organizational theory, which says that because countries are governed by various bureaucratic agencies, and each organization has its various interests, standard operating procedures, and customs which sometimes contradict other organizations, that no leader can possibly have full control over the nuclear arsenal, and therefore an accidental launch of a nuclear weapon will be more and more likely as new nuclear weapons states emerge. Sagan gives numerous examples of near-misses in the history of the Cold War and that of India and Pakistan in more recent years to highlight the precarious nature of the nuclear peace that has existed for more than 50 years. The book allows the readers to make their own conclusions as to whether more nuclear weapons states is better or worse.
Both arguments are written in a clear and easily understandable way, and many examples are provided for both. Even the 'more is better' argument, which is not the argument favored in past US policy, is allowed to give sufficient evidence to support that viewpoint. The book does an admirable job of balancing the two completely opposite viewpoints, where the 'less is better' is clearly favored by many more people in the public. The book provides a very good understanding of the various issues that need to be considered when evaluating the impact of nuclear weapons on national and international stability. The thoughtful and respectful arguments between the two authors is pleasant to read.
The book provides an excellent readable account of two opposing viewpoints on the spread of nuclear weapons. One is that more nuclear states leads to greater international stability and peace, and the other that more nuclear states leads to increasingly likely use of a nuclear weapon by some accident.
Both arguments are written in a clear and easily understandable way, and many examples are provided for both. Even the 'more is better' argument, which is not the argument favored in past US policy, is allowed to give sufficient evidence to support that viewpoint. The book does an admirable job of balancing the two completely opposite viewpoints, where the 'less is better' is clearly favored by many more people in the public. The book provides a very good understanding of the various issues that need to be considered when evaluating the impact of nuclear weapons on national and international stability. The thoughtful and respectful arguments between the two authors is pleasant to read.
The book provides an excellent readable account of two opposing viewpoints on the spread of nuclear weapons. One is that more nuclear states leads to greater international stability and peace, and the other that more nuclear states leads to increasingly likely use of a nuclear weapon by some accident.
June 22, 2023
Pretty good book on the nuclear proliferation debate. Both sides make convincing cases. Each argument had their own strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I left combining the two. In a realist self-help anarchic, if the rulers of a state see calculate that the best way to protect the country is with a nuclear weapon, then it is nearly impossible to prevent them from acquiring one forever. At some point, they will acquire a nuclear weapon. But I agree with Sagan's natural accidents and organizational theory that makes nuclear accidents almost inevitable, so widespread proliferation should not be advocated. Fortunately, there is only a handful of countries who have nuclear weapons and there is only a few who are seeking to get a nuclear weapon. So widespread proliferation does not seem to be in our future. Furthermore, just like Sagan I worry about terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon, as other countries nuclear arsenals will not deter them. But there seems to be no perfect solution for that problem.
In the end, the "cats out of the bat" when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only way to completely get rid of nuclear weapons is to give everyone brain surgery. It is just something we have to live with.
In the end, the "cats out of the bat" when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only way to completely get rid of nuclear weapons is to give everyone brain surgery. It is just something we have to live with.
May 22, 2022
A book that is worth reading to learn how this kind of issues are tackled by political scientist. That is, huge debate on the validity of the employed theoretical framework, analysis of past events and interpretation of nowadays agency of nations.
In this regards, the debate hinges on two models: Waltz makes the assumption of a rational behaviour of whatever actor may he be a democratic leader or a despot. From this it turns out that a nuclear weapon is sought for the solely aim of deterrence, so reducing the risk of larger wars and the very best efforts of any country are devoted to make the nuke arsenal safe. Sagan, on the contrary, plays the card of organization theory in which the robust assumption of rationality is weakened to inspect the mechanisms unfolding in complex organizations (military high commands, civilian cabinets or dictator's courts). Hence the potential threats coming from mismanagement, procedures rarely upgraded, parochial interests, biases and attitude to gambling of solo-leaders are enlightened.
Waltz stresses the benefit of deterrence so to welcome a world-wide proliferation of nukes. Sagan warns on the detrimental effect of a nuclear shield beyond which a rogue state can launch a conventional war with no consequences of a harsh response from adversaries.
In this regards, the debate hinges on two models: Waltz makes the assumption of a rational behaviour of whatever actor may he be a democratic leader or a despot. From this it turns out that a nuclear weapon is sought for the solely aim of deterrence, so reducing the risk of larger wars and the very best efforts of any country are devoted to make the nuke arsenal safe. Sagan, on the contrary, plays the card of organization theory in which the robust assumption of rationality is weakened to inspect the mechanisms unfolding in complex organizations (military high commands, civilian cabinets or dictator's courts). Hence the potential threats coming from mismanagement, procedures rarely upgraded, parochial interests, biases and attitude to gambling of solo-leaders are enlightened.
Waltz stresses the benefit of deterrence so to welcome a world-wide proliferation of nukes. Sagan warns on the detrimental effect of a nuclear shield beyond which a rogue state can launch a conventional war with no consequences of a harsh response from adversaries.
October 24, 2019
I've assigned prior editions of this book several times in my International Security class. I used this edition this fall, the first time I've taught the course since 2010. It's still a valuable read, but I had to provide a lot of up-to-date information about Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Also, the authors' main arguments for and against proliferation are repeatedly excessively. With Kenneth Waltz's death since this edition was produced, I'm not sure whether there will be future editions. Thus, it may be the last time I assign it, which is unfortunate. I'd like to have a new volume with the basic debate, updated with new evidence, and perhaps brief rebuttals. That approach would probably knock 75 - 100 pages off of the text.
June 19, 2019
Had to read two chapters for an undergrad course several years ago and only now finished entirely. Good read as both sides of the debate are simply stated yet fairly well-rounded. Biggest peeve is how Sagan's argument is laced unfairly with a subtle anti-military bias. I'm glad someone has the gall to confront the military in the slightest, as it is both frowned upon in our age of political correctness but vital for our society to survive and flourish. Still, his surprisingly lengthy focus on the military as an institution anxious to pull the trigger (which isn't always the case, particularly now after our snafus in Iraq and Afghanistan) betrays a hidden anti-military bias.
December 14, 2022
This is an extremely interesting book with two very different points of view as it pertains to the question of the future of nuclear weapons. Upon reading this book, you may be shocked to find out which side of the argument you may land on by the end of it. For anyone interested in international relations, this is an important book to help understand the proliferation (or spread) vs. non-proliferation discussion. The only time the book falters is that some of their arguments are made in the introductory chapters which makes for some repetition in later portions of the book.
December 6, 2008
Interesting book that spawned some of my doctoral research.
One question: In this book, Waltz assumes that security is abundant (e.g. that countries will be satisfied with the existential deterrent provided by nuclear weapons). This claim directly contradicts his assertion in Theory of International Politics that anarchy in the intl. system makes security scarce (and hence creates the impetus for states to seek security, the driver of events in his theory). So which is it?
One question: In this book, Waltz assumes that security is abundant (e.g. that countries will be satisfied with the existential deterrent provided by nuclear weapons). This claim directly contradicts his assertion in Theory of International Politics that anarchy in the intl. system makes security scarce (and hence creates the impetus for states to seek security, the driver of events in his theory). So which is it?
May 14, 2013
Great book between two great thinkers. However, I find myself overwhelmingly siding with Sagan. I believe Sagan's points on organization control of weapons are highly insightful, especially considering the current state of Pakistan's politics. Additionally, this book gives one a reason to be highly concerned over Iranian and North Korean weapon's programs.
January 17, 2016
Waltz and Sagan take opposites sides on the debate over nuclear weapons. Waltz argues that more weapons is a good thing, since deterrence works, and the more states that go nuclear, the more likely deterrence will prevent conflict. Sagan argues that proliferation (vertical and horizontal) will create more danger, due to terrorists, accidents, misconceptions, and military organizational culture.
March 7, 2016
Sagan and Waltz eloquently and concisely explain their viewpoints regarding nuclear proliferation and demonstrate utmost civility toward and respect for each other. They acknowledge shortcomings and assumptions within their own positions and clearly demonstrate how they arrive at their conclusions from their axioms.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews