Sagan, Waltz and the Question of ‘Nuclear Zero’

‘The Spread of Nuclear Weapons’ by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz is a staple reading for every undergraduate IR course. Concise and accessible, it makes the often arcane subjects of nuclear weapons policy accessible to interested laypersons. Both authors are reputed scholars and experts on the subject in their own right, which makes the book information-rich and instructive. This article looks at the chapter ‘Is Nuclear Zero the best option?’.

Waltz and Sagan don’t agree on everything. Sagan’s chapters convey a pessimistic view of nuclear weapons and their destructive power. Sagan believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will also increase the likelihood of their use. On the other hand, Waltz highlights their help in maintaining international order and preventing conflicts from escalating. Waltz believes that more nuclear weapons offer a better shot at maintaining peace. Both agree on the destruction that would result from a nuclear attack, though - and that such a situation must be avoided at all costs— since the human losses would be too significant to bear.

Having each speculated on what a future with states with burgeoning nuclear arsenals look like, Sagan and Waltz conclude by debating whether a global nuclear zero is the best answer. Their debate doesn’t provide easy solutions and leaves the reader pondering what would be scarier: a world with nukes or without?

What Sagan and Waltz say

The authors agree that nuclear weapons are the classic Catch-22 situation. Yes, they have catalysed and been the result of the arms race. Yes, they leave heads of state at the edge of their seat each time a neighbouring state with differing interests gets a hold of them. However, one can only imagine the violence and destruction that might have ensued after the Second World War without nuclear weapons. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki set the stage for what became an established international norm: not using nuclear weapons. Yet, nobody knew whether their nuclear-armed enemy would adhere to this norm, and this fear kept several conflicts from escalating.

The chapter is a back and forth between the two, and the discourse on nuclear zero fleshes out the arguments below.

Sagan is a proponent of the idea of nuclear zero. He believes the world has changed since the Second World War and the Cold War. According to Sagan, we are in an era of peaceful diplomacy, potentially devoid of the need to resort to the use of violent means of resolving conflicts.  He believes that nuclear weapons are no longer required to keep the peace. The crux of his argument is that the more nuclear weapons there are, the higher the chances of them falling into the hands of someone who could use them for mass destruction. 

In contrast, Waltz is more disillusioned with the idea of nuclear zero and speaks of all the dangers of escalation and war without the shadow of a potential nuclear attack keeping things in check. Waltz bases his argument on the fact that since their creation, despite multiple arms races and the occasional nuclear threat that did not escalate, overall nuclear weapons have been instrumental in maintaining peace. Waltz also contends that the deterrent capabilities of the US are what allow them to have a hegemon-like position, since its nuclear arsenal enhances its military power.

Conclusions

Now that nuclear weapons exist, it is imperative to ensure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. Nuclear-armed terrorist attacks are the one nightmare shared across the board- despite a conflict of interests between states. An organisation like Al-Qaeda having nukes at its disposal would be in everyone’s worst interests. One of the central arguments put forward by proponents of nuclear zero, such as Sagan, is that there is no sure way to ensure that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. 

Russian remarks during the ongoing Ukraine crisis are terrifying, mainly because it’s safe to assume that nuclear capabilities have increased exponentially since WW2. 

While the destructive potential of nuclear war is hard to imagine, going back to a world without nukes could lead to conflicts escalating. Without the looming threat of nuclear war, some speculate that there could even be a third world war if an international dispute arises.

Also lulling us to the dangers, is the reality that many of the present generations have not lived through large interstate wars. A generation more distant from the horrors of the early 20th century is more prone to wanting to resort to armed conflicts.

A nuclear zero seems far-off. Given the dangers of nuclear weapons, they must be kept out of the hands of anyone who might resort to them. A ‘no first use policy’ policy seems more realistic than an absolute nuclear zero. It keeps one equipped for the unlikely event of a nuclear war but stops one from being the instigator of such an outcome.