go to top

The New Rules: Nuclear Deterrence Ain't Broke, So Don't Fix It

Monday, March 21, 2011

For decades now, strategic experts have predicted that our world was on the verge of a break-out in nuclear proliferation that would see us grappling with two- or three-dozen nuclear powers. Indeed, the inexorable spread of nuclear weapons is the closest thing to an unassailable canon in the field of international relations, as one cannot possibly employ the term "nuclear proliferation" without preceding it with the modifier "increasing." This unshakeable belief, wholly unsupported by any actual evidence, drives many Cold War-era "wise men" to argue that mutually assured destruction (MAD) and strategic deterrence in general are obsolete and therefore immoral in the post-Cold War era.

But an examination of the historical record reveals otherwise. It took two decades after the U.S. developed nuclear weapons in 1945 for the world to reach five nuclear powers, all of which, naturally enough, now wield vetoes in the United Nations Security Council. The Soviets, aided by secret-stealing spies, followed the U.S. lead in 1949. America shared nuclear weapons technology with Canada, the United Kingdom and -- indirectly -- France, with the latter two becoming nuclear powers in 1952 and 1960 respectively. The Soviets then shared technology with China, which became a nuclear power in 1964. Meanwhile, Australia tried to gain access to the U.K.'s technology for years, but eventually gave up. ...

Want to Read the Rest?
Login or Subscribe Today.
Get unlimited access to must-read news, analysis and opinion from top experts. Subscribe to World Politics Review and you'll receive instant access to 9,000+ articles in the World Politics Review Library, along with new comprehensive analysis every weekday . . . written by leading topic experts.

YES, I want to subscribe now.