The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate
Sagan and Waltz have taken two recent, divergent articles and added a pair of rebuttals. The result is a short and worthwhile but inconclusive debate about whether the spread of nuclear weapons is a good thing. Waltz, one of the most influential theorists of international relations, expresses a degree of equanimity about the consequences of nuclear proliferation that most members of the foreign policy establishment will find horrifyingly complacent. Sagan, considerably more junior but widely published on the organization of nuclear strategy, powerfully argues the dangers of preventive war, accident, and miscalculation. Although both fall back on historical examples, one is struck by the degree to which history may not provide a very clear guide about the risks (or, if one agrees with Waltz, the rewards) to an international political order arising from nuclear proliferation.
Related
The Clinton administration supports crippling economic sanctions that punish the Iraqi people but seems ready to live with the demise of international inspections to monitor Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Washington has it exactly backward. It should offer Baghdad a blunt trade: lightened sanctions in return for renewed, intrusive arms inspections. The sweeping sanctions regime does nothing to advance U.S. interests, undermine Saddam, or contain Iraq. Leaving Saddam's arsenal unwatched is folly. Better to have arms inspections without sanctions than sanctions without arms inspections.
As Cold War threats have diminished, so-called weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles -- have become the new international bugbears. The irony is that the harm caused by these weapons pales in comparison to the havoc wreaked by a much more popular tool: economic sanctions. Tally up the casualties caused by rogue states, terrorists, and unconventional weapons, and the number is surprisingly small. The same cannot be said for deaths inflicted by international sanctions. The math is sobering and should lead the United States to reconsider its current policy of strangling Iraq.
A raft of new books confronts a very real threat--the terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction--and propose vital, though moderate, responses.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.