The Spread of Nuclear Weapons

From the debate, Sagan’s argument is founded on both the organizational and rational deterrence theory. He argues that rational state actions are debilitated due to the fact that organizational interests govern state behavior. Therefore, according to him, a non-proliferation treaty would serve as the best-recommended solution. Additionally, his argument also involves the military ideology where the military is solely focused on using whatever means to achieve victory while noncombatants control the warheads . At the same time, the concept supports that a civilian-military collaboration and relation should be built among the states. Nonetheless, deterrence is likely to occur unless frequent monitoring is done on both military firms as well as political leaders. 

Having heard the debate between Waltz and Sagan, Sagan’s campaign on non-proliferation of nuclear arms is more convincing as he is liberal minded. He is distrustful of the nuclear proliferation in the future is solely left to the hands of combatants where civilians cannot interpose. Having many nuclear weapons is a big threat as it would increase the likelihoods of them falling into the wrong hands. After all, the predominance of rogue nations or terrorist organizations who may not hold on to the rules of deterrence poses significant threats. Tension between nations would increase due to this proliferation further endangering the stability in international security as countries would seek to safeguard their own interests from uncertain threats. 

Even though there are assumptions that increase in nuclear weapons would lead to an amplified international security and global safety, a non-proliferation agenda such as Sagan’s slant to military-civilian interaction should not be discharged but rather reinforced. However, from the military perspective, the trend in nuclear proliferation poses a major threat. Therefore, it can be concluded that having more nuclear weapons would lead to a worse situation.