The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Proliferation

Since the use of the first nuclear bomb during WWII, states have wanted this form of ultimate power. Possession of a nuclear weapon places that state in very exclusive club that only nine other states have entered1. When states have nuclear weapons the nature of warfare is dramatically changed. States not only have to factor in conventional war tactics and strategies, but must calculate when and if a nuclear weapon is used or whether it should be used at all. Although there are currently nine states that have nuclear weapons, other states are either working on procuring nuclear capabilities or seeking to purchase them or just flat hiding them from the international community. Nuclear proliferation is a growing concern and was debated by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz at Columbia University on February 8, 2007. In this essay I will present a …show more content…
Nuclear weapons create a risk to nations themselves as they begin to acquire more and more nuclear weapons, especially for nations who are trying to obtain nuclear weapons and have periled relationships with the other states. For example, Pakistan and India are states that have nuclear weapons and their relationship is very sensitive which could collapse at any time for any reason. Although this has not occurred yet, which Waltz would argue, look at the history of Pakistan. Sagan explains that the three theories of the dangers of nuclear weapons actually happened in Pakistan. First, Pakistan became an increasingly aggressive conventional state because of the nuclear shield. Second, theft by terrorists. Third, loss of control and the sale of the weapons to terrorists. The problems with the nuclear weapons in Pakistan caused the Kargil war. And as Sagan points out that ‘States’ may have the incentive for the proper care of nuclear weapons, but the threat lives with the actors inside the states that may