ns have added to their stockpile of weapons. The argument will therefore center on horizontal distribution, on other states gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons (1). To see what this spread might mean to us today, Waltz looks to the past for similar circumstances, a logical approach, though of limited value when you are talking about nuclear weapons that can annihilate the planet, something no nation or group of nations could ever accomplish before. He does look to the more immediate nuclear past and finds evidence that nations have been able to create a form of stability through terror: "Contemplating the nuclear past gives ground for hoping that the world will survive if further nuclear powers join today's dozen" (8). This is because at every stage, as a new country would join the nuclear club, there was a fear that others would follow and that disaster would strike. It did not. However, just because it did not in the past is no reason to be certain it will not in the future, especially if less politically and morally stable countries gain the use of such weaponry.
Yet, Waltz believes that having more countries with nuclear capability might be better. He says first that it is not likely that nuclear weapons will spread that widely in the immediate future because many countries simply cannot develop them that rapidly, either because of economic problems or instability. Governments have to deal with t
...