by Ella Clarke

Created on: February 04, 2008

Since 1947, Pakistan and India have fought in wars against one another. At present time, India and Pakistan sit in heightened conflict with one another, both in possession of nuclear weapons. With that, comes potential for severe situations to arise. A common concern among contemporary debates is how stable or unstable is nuclear South Asia, specifically Pakistan and India. Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz share this debate from two very different positions. Both authors make strong cases, I, however chose to go beyond both arguments.

Scott D. Sagan argues in his article, "Nuclear Instability in South Asia", that it is likely that India and Pakistan's future will see a nuclear crisis. He bases his arguments on their recurrent conflicts with one another as well as various other factors pertaining to military organizational behavior. Sagan basically argues that nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan will result in deliberate or accidental nuclear war or nuclear theft by terrorists. Whereas Kenneth Waltz, a neo-realist and social constructivist argues in his article, "Nuclear Stability in South Asia", that the more the nuclear weapons the better. Waltz believes that these states will be able to better their status by using their nuclear capabilities to preserve peace and deter threats.

Both authors, attempt to address the questions regarding likely consequences with the spread of nuclear weapons between these two states. Waltz argues that the fear behind Sagan's arguments is exaggerated and will in fact make the world a more stable place. He maintains a cavalier attitude towards states possessing nuclear capabilities. Waltz suggests that if two countries were face to face, "locked in deaths' embrace" (Pg. 256), as he puts it, that one would back down and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply both countries' strategy in this nuclear game of chess. As a social constructivist, Waltz believes in a states right to maintain one's security, and having nuclear capabilities, he argues, will contribute largely to this.

Sagan on the other hand, believes that although nuclear deterrence existed between the Soviet Union and the U.S during the cold war, the nature of future nuclear powers could be a different story. He discusses several factors that may contribute to this instability. Sagan brings up the issue of security; with regard to the security measures in place that these two countries fail to maintain with their nuclear weapons. In India civil

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>