Nuclear Stability Before & After Cold War

Question 1

The Issue of Nuclear Stability - Waltz v. Sagan

Answer 1

1. Kenneth Waltz - Proliferation Optimism
   - Nuclear Weapon’s made the Cold War stable, and stopped it turning ‘hot’
   - Kept the bipolar order stable (but what about multipolar)
   - “More is better” thesis
2. Scott Sagan - Proliferation Pessimism
   - 3 models of acquisition: Security, Political and Norms
   - Military bias towards use of weaponry can lead to failures and accident
   - More nuclear weapons means increased risks of accidents and security dilemma’s

Question 2

The Relevance and Utility of Deterrence/MAD

Answer 2

1. Fred Ikle - arms race deterrence assumes RAM, but does not account for “Hitler in his final moments”
2. Bernard Brodie - technological developments and the existence of 9 NWS’s means that deterrence dynamic has changed, therefore not not relevant anymore
3. Michael Quinlan - Deterrence refers to future/contingency scenario, but they cannot be just for that, they are also fore use

Question 3

The Changing Role of NW’s in Post-CW World

Answer 3

1. Michael Quinland - Cold War framework still applies to the dynamic of the 21st century, NW’s still provide security
2. Stephen Younger - Use of NW’s must change in the post-Cold War world, stockpiles should be reduced to 1/3 of their current levels
3. Joseph Crincione - The world is not more dangerous than during the Cold War, this is just a rhetoric used to advance policy by states

Question 4

Is MAD Justifiable?

Answer 4

Andrew Futter highlights three issues with MAD:

1. Rationality of MAD assumes RAM too much
2. Accidents are more likely to happen as states must maintain a credible strike capability as deterrence
3. Morality of MAD is questionable, means states must have some vulnerability which risks lives, why not try to stop NW’s altogether?