The document discusses the debate around nuclear weapons proliferation. Scott D. Sagan argues that nuclear weapons promote deterrence and discourage arms races and conflicts that threaten vital interests. Kenneth N. Waltz disagrees due to risks of accidents, lack of oversight, and preemptive wars. The author argues that deterrence through assured retaliation is stable, as during the Cold War, and that nuclear weapons discourage conventional arms races and limit escalation in conflicts.

1. Nuclear proliferation :
The question : Is nuclear zero is the best option for the world?
Scott D. Sagan :Yes ; Kenneth N.Waltz :NO
Nuclear Weapons have been considered the great debate since the US used atomic
weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapon is the main focus since the end
of cold war from the two completely opposing ideologies.it has remained with us ever
since.
Why Scott D Sagan are in favour of nuclear weapon :
1.Detterence
2.Less arm races
3.Any conflict will rapidly de-escalate
4.Both sides will avoid threatening vital interest
Why Kenneth N. Waltz are not in favour of nuclear weapon :
1.Accidents
2.Lack of checks and balances
3.Pre-emptive Nuclear war
4.Proliferation Risks
5.The dismanting of Nuclear warheads

2. My opinion:
I agree with Scott d. Sagan . The bipolar world of the cold war was stable and relatively
peaceful. There was no general war among the great powers of the world, unlike the
previous half century. The cold war peace has lasted longer even than that created by
the concert of Europe between 1815 and 1856. Bipolarity allowed both sides to keep
tight control over their respective blocs as they were by far and away the most powerful
members. Balancing had to be internal rather than through the movements of a ‘swing’
state, this was done in part by nuclear weapons stockpiles, once they reached a certain
level it did not matter if one side had more, the other could still deter attack.
Deterrence operates by frightening a state out of attacking. It is achieved by the ability
to punish. This is why a second strike capability is necessary. [John J. Mearshimer, 'The
Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrant', Foreign Affairs, (Summer, 1993), pp.57-58,
Nuclear weapons make defence and deterrence much more effective than offence. This
is because nuclear weapons are a weapon of last resort; they are most likely to be fired
in defence. If a country concentrates on its second strike capability rather than offensive
nuclear weapons it is possible for it to become an entirely defensive weapon, this would
mean it could not act as a coercive threat and would not result in a security
dilemma.[Robert Jervis, ‘Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold
War Era’, Foreign Affairs, (July, 2001)
There is no need for conventional arms races, any number of conventional weapons
can be balanced by nuclear weapons. There is little point in having a ‘relative
advantage’ in conventional weapons when there are nuclear weapons as a last resort.

3. nuclear arms races are almost as pointless, unless the possibility of achieving a first
strike capability is within striking distance then it won’t matter if there is a big gap in the
number of nuclear weapons two states have. Britain and France felt that their modest
nuclear stockpiles were an effective deterrent to the USSR, and China felt its 40 or so
nuclear weapons was enough when it was not firmly tied to one bloc.
[Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers,
Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981)
If deterrence fails for whatever reason, then both sides still have every incentive to start
off with smaller weapons enabling them to escalate upwards if necessary. Moreover the
reasons not to go to war (M.A.D) are still there when it comes to a possible escalation in
a conflict. Each escalation makes the possibly of mass destruction more likely so if
anything the incentives for de-escalation grow as there is escalation towards a nuclear
war.
“Defensive deployment, if it should fail to dis-suade, would bring small nuclear weapons
into use before the physical, political and psychological environment had deteriorated.
The chances of de-escalation are high if the use of nuclear weapons is carefully
planned and their use is limited to the battlefield.”
Wars fought will be unlikely to threaten a nuclear country’s vital interests, states will
ensure that both they and their enemy have room to back down, this means moving the
competition on to less contentious issues. Many countries have disputes of varying
scales with their neighbours, having nuclear weapons would ensure that these are

4. resolved peacefully, states would no longer be able to threaten force over any such
dispute as the potential gains would be so small compared to the possible risk of
annihilation. For example both Ukraine and Russia having nuclear weapons would
prevent Russian attempts at intimidation over Russians living in the Crimea and the
basing of the black sea fleet. While a country does not have nuclear weapons it remains
vulnerable and trapped in the security dilemma, as it is unable to realise its own security
by building up conventional forces.