'Is less more'? A Contemporary Debate on Nuclear Weapons
(2012) STVK01 20121Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- The global community has long been fascinated by – as well as terrified of – nuclear weapons. Since the introduction of the weaponry to the international arena in 1945, the goal has been to halt its proliferation. An ideal, future world is one that is free from nuclear weapons. If the goal is to ensure stability and peace in the world, one assumes that the presence of nuclear weapons has the opposite effect. Scott D. Sagan is one out of many scholars arguing that in terms of nuclear weapons, ‘more will be worse’.
This thesis will challenge this assumption using the research of scholar Kenneth N. Waltz who argues that ‘more may be better’. It will be argued that nuclear weapons can ensure stability and peace in the world, using rational... (More) - The global community has long been fascinated by – as well as terrified of – nuclear weapons. Since the introduction of the weaponry to the international arena in 1945, the goal has been to halt its proliferation. An ideal, future world is one that is free from nuclear weapons. If the goal is to ensure stability and peace in the world, one assumes that the presence of nuclear weapons has the opposite effect. Scott D. Sagan is one out of many scholars arguing that in terms of nuclear weapons, ‘more will be worse’.
This thesis will challenge this assumption using the research of scholar Kenneth N. Waltz who argues that ‘more may be better’. It will be argued that nuclear weapons can ensure stability and peace in the world, using rational actors and mutual deterrence. To verify this reasoning, it will be normatively adapted to the case of Iran’s nuclear program. In this specific context and regional setting, the approach offers a new perspective on how the international community could, and perhaps should, respond to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon development.
The point is not if a nuclear weapon-equipped Iran can ever be justified, but rather that it could be. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2543093
- author
- Gleizer, Veronica LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- STVK01 20121
- year
- 2012
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Nuclear Weapons, Mutual Deterrence, Iran, Kenneth N. Waltz, Scott D. Sagan
- language
- English
- id
- 2543093
- date added to LUP
- 2012-06-27 10:45:33
- date last changed
- 2012-06-27 10:45:33
@misc{2543093,
abstract = {{The global community has long been fascinated by – as well as terrified of – nuclear weapons. Since the introduction of the weaponry to the international arena in 1945, the goal has been to halt its proliferation. An ideal, future world is one that is free from nuclear weapons. If the goal is to ensure stability and peace in the world, one assumes that the presence of nuclear weapons has the opposite effect. Scott D. Sagan is one out of many scholars arguing that in terms of nuclear weapons, ‘more will be worse’.
This thesis will challenge this assumption using the research of scholar Kenneth N. Waltz who argues that ‘more may be better’. It will be argued that nuclear weapons can ensure stability and peace in the world, using rational actors and mutual deterrence. To verify this reasoning, it will be normatively adapted to the case of Iran’s nuclear program. In this specific context and regional setting, the approach offers a new perspective on how the international community could, and perhaps should, respond to Iran’s suspected nuclear weapon development.
The point is not if a nuclear weapon-equipped Iran can ever be justified, but rather that it could be.}},
author = {{Gleizer, Veronica}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{'Is less more'? A Contemporary Debate on Nuclear Weapons}},
year = {{2012}},
}