This important book clearly and succinctly lays out the opposing views on whether nuclear proliferation makes the world more or less peaceful.

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. ( )

The Spread of Nuclear Weapons features two of the leading scholars on international security, Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, debating the question of whether nuclear weapons proliferation would be bad for the world. Sagan takes the view that it would be bad while Waltz takes the position that it would not necessarily be bad and might even be a net positive for international security.

The book begins with Waltz and Sagan laying out their arguments and presenting the scholarly and historical evidence that supports them. They then go into a debate regarding how the proliferation of nuclear weapons to South Asia has affected the Indo-Pakistani conflict. The book then ends with Waltz and Sagan responding directly to the other's arguments.

The Spread of Nuclear Weapons is an excellent book for anyone looking to find a primer on the arguments for and against attempting to halt nuclear weapons proliferation. While there is a lot of theory in the book, it is of a type that is easy to follow even for people who are not trained in international and national security issues. The only thing really missing is a cost-benefit analysis. But that oversight does little to detract from the overall quality. ( )