The debate over the production of nuclear weapons began with the announcement of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The power of the weapon and the devastation it wrought frightened many Americans, not for the least reason because they considered what would happen if the weapon were turned on them, but also out of a humanitarian concern for the horror and death the bomb brought to Japan. The arguments have continued on both sides ever since, and even today in the post-Cold War era, the issue remains vital because more and more countries are seeking and achieving atomic capability. Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weaponry to more and more countries, has long been a fear of the U.S. government, and efforts have been made to control the distribution of nuclear materials. Another worry today is that technology has advanced to where bombs can be made quite small, and a particularly frightening possibility is that terrorists could get their hands on sufficient material to make such a device. Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz in their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate present alternating points of view in a debate format to highlight the arguments on both sides of the issue, whether nuclear weapons are needed to keep others from aggressive acts, or whether the danger is too great and the weapons should be destroyed.
The authors begin by noting that this is one of the most critical international issues facing us today, in part because more and more nations are joining the nuclear club. The authors do not argue about who gets the bomb or about how states develop nuclear capability. They ask instead, "What are the likely consequences of the spread of nuclear weapons?" (viii).
The idea that nuclear weapons should be increased is offered by Waltz, who states first that he prefers to discuss the spread of nuclear weapons because proliferation to date has been vertical, meaning that natio...