This book is about one of today's most crucial international

issues, the spread of nuclear weapons.

This book is neither about who will get the bomb next nor it
deals the technical and political process by which states may
develop nuclear weapons.
The aim of this book is to monitor a more important question.
What are the pons and cons of the spread of nuclear weapons?
What and how will nuclear weapons shape the world?
The answer is this question is by no means obvious and
somple. This book is infact a contradiction of views of Kenneth
klaltz and scott D.Sagan.
Kenneth Klaltz is optimistic about nuclear proliferation and
Scott.D.Sagan is pessimistic about nuclear proliferation. Both of
them disagree about the central issue.
Kenneth klaltz argues that fear of the spread of nuclear
weapons is exaggerated. According to him "More may
better",because new nuclear states will use their weapons to
threat other countries from attaching them. States will use these
weapons for deterance purpose .
Scott sagan argues that spread of nuclear weapons will lead to
the in stability of world.
According to him "more will be worse", since some new
nuclear states will launch prevention wars. and also there are
chance of nuclear weapons accidents.
In the first two chapters ,Kenetth klaltz and scott sagan
present their own arguments and views to develop the logics ,
platform and evidence that support each argument.
In the third and fourth chapters, both respond to each others
view and criticisms. There is also a glimpse of agreement
between them, but disagreements overshadow the agreements.
Disagreements comprise much of this book. Besides

disagreements there are also some degree of agreement between

them.First ,both belive that theories are very important , in order
to understand ,international political system .Second both believe
that intellectual debates are useful . They belive that ideas are
polished through debate and through verifying ideas against
evidence.
This book is infact a debate between keneth klaltz and scott
sagan. Both of them hope taht those who read this book find that
it serves a useful purpose and will ignite a new thinking pattern in
their minds.
Third, they believe that political scientists play a vital role in
improving the government outlook.
In the 1st chapter "More may be better", keneth klaltz argued taht
gradual spread of nuclear weapons is not dangerous . There is
anarchy in international system concept of "self help",works in
international system . countries have to be the custodian of their
own security. If country feel insecure and believe that nuclear
weapons would serve as protective sheath and make them
moresecure,then in this cinerio American policy of opposing the
spread of nuclear weapons will not work.United states can
persuade other countries to give up nuclear weapons is to
guarantee their secuirty and states secuirty itself is an enigma
due to secuirty dilema.
The stance that every one is doing it creates agitation in states
so they also persue for nuclear weapons.The structure of
international system compels states to go for nulear
weapons.According to Keneth Waltz spread of nuclear weapons
will make a promising future .Accordig to him this conclusion was
drawn because of three reasons.
First international politics is self help system,second nuclear
weapons makes miscalculation difficult because it is hard not to
be aware of hoe much danage is nuclear weapon can do. Nuclear
weapons threaten to make the cost of wars difficult ,who will dare
to initiate them?

Third new nuclear states will be more concious for their safety
and more pragmatist and mind full about the dangers of nuclear
weapons. The chances of the war decrease as deterrent and
defensive capabilities increases.
IN the second chapter MOre will be worse Sagan argued that
nuclear proliferation optimists have confused the gesture of what
rational states should do with assumptions of what real states will
do.
According to him rationality is a very complex
phenomena,according to his notion,many nuclear states may well
behave in a sensible manner but some will not and ultimately
there will be serious consequenses for the whole international
system.
According to him common organizational behaviour can create a
nuclear revolution.ACCORDING TO HIM the common biases,rigid
routines and parochial interest of militiary organization will lead to
deterrence failures.
Third chapter is a debate between Sagan and Waltz India and
Pakistan nuclear weapons for better or worse?
According to Sagan nuclear South Asia will be a dangerous
place.India and Pakistan will face a dangerous nuclear future as
the imperfect humans,the chavnist inside imperfect organizatios
control their nuclear weapons.
According to him the worse history of India and Pakistan in which
boty have gone through several wars due yo agitation is a base
for future that they will engage in nuclear war which will cause a
havoc.
Due to geographical proximity,if a nuclear accident or a irrational
war happens then both have to face the music.the case study of
US and Russia is not comparable with India and Pakistan.

According to Waltz,deterrence will be applicable,it will be a sort of

bridge between India and Pakistan.The tense history of India and
Pakistan in which both have gone through several conventinal
wars,the nuclear weapons will make the cost of war immense and
both will be reluctant to initiate a war.
In fourth chapter Waltz respond to Saganwaltz arged yhat
nuclear weapons are relatively cheap,they will be antigonistic to
the occurrence of wars.The alternative to nuclear weapons is to
start a more lethal conventional arm race which elevated the risk
of fighting highly destructive wars,then he said that deterrence is
not just concept infact detrrrent policies shape themselves from
structural theory which focuses that states must tend to ensure
their secuirty according to the structure of international system.
Deterrence does not depend on the notion of rationality.it
depends on fear and nuclear weapons are the best mean to
create fear.
As Sagan says that new nuclear states lake safety devices for
their weapons but according to Waltz small states are more eager
and enthusiastic to safeguard their nuclear arsenals.Number Of
nuclear weapons do not matter for second stike capability but
credibility matters.The nuclear terroist can not made irrational
decision to exploit nuclear weapon because it will result in
catastrophe.
In fifth chapter Sagan said that real challenge is to create a global
stance that it is better to remain non nuclear states.There should
be a world without the lust of nuclear weapons,the eradication of
nuclear weapons should e te ultimate goal.
The logic of deterrence is not applicable because terrorist can get
access to these weapoms and the doubtful organizational
reliability tends to increase the fear of nuclear weapons.After the
attack on world trade center the fear about terroist is increased
more that they can doany thing at the cost of their lives.

According to my point of view nuclear weapon aids the purpose

of deterrence .Anarchy prevails in international system.It is a self
help system ,in such harsh system nuclear weapons are very
essential.
Nuclear weapons have made the cost of war immense,no will take
the initiative to start a war,because of the catastrophic notion of
nuclear weapon.