K Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better,” in Betts, Conflict and the Cold War

Basic argument: the spread of nuclear weapons would in fact have a pacifying effect on international relations. The more deadly the potential retaliation, and also the less certain others' capabilities are, the more countries will stay in line. The risks are too high for almost any potential gain.

Other points: The distinction between defense (having a strong shield, say, of anti-missile systems) vs. deterrance (having the capability to strike back with such strength the risk of attacking you although you are defenseless is not attractive).

Also a bit on the idea that worry about new nuclear states not having the capability to really develop and control nuclear arms is a bit condescending--after all, the 2/3 major powers managed our developmental stages just fine. A country won't develop a nuclear arms without the proper technicians and officials in place.

My reactions: While all of the potential arguments I could think of are dealt with, I feel the weak point is in the first argument: "It hasn't happened so far, why does that make the future seem even more dire?" I don't think it does make the future seem any more or less dire that we have so far made it through more than half a century will multiple nuclear states. The worry that he doesn't address is that once that row of dominoes that is the "stabilizing" deterrant effect of multiple countries with a large arsenal of nuclear weapons is put into play, we really just need a handful of bombings to create catastrophe. While it is reasonable to remind oneself that the leader of a country would be mindful of the responsibility required in having nuclear capabilities, it is not assured the ease of world catastrophe would be prevented by logical thinking.