preview

The Cold War And A Bipolar System

Satisfactory Essays

Kenneth Waltz, a renowned international relations theorist, believes that the rise of new nuclear powers is not a matter to be regretted. In Waltz 's view, a major war would be essentially inconceivable. Thus, he thinks that "more may be better", that what has come to be called "nuclear proliferation" may really be something to be thankful for (Waltz, 1981, p. 30). However, is that fundamental claim actually valid? Would it be as stable as Waltz suggests? Considering Waltz 's analysis and the case study of the Cold War, can nuclear proliferation lead to a safer world? On the one hand, yes, as deterrence has so far proven its self as can be seen in the case of the Cold War and a bipolar system. However, with the collapse of the Cold War there has been a unipolar shift which can be seen as dangerous, thus with nuclear proliferation, deterrence theory can still take effect. Another way nuclear proliferation can lead to a safer world is that weaker states are able to use them as a means of self defense. However, there is also the case that nuclear proliferation makes the world unsafe as there is actually the risk of a nuclear event taking place.
A bipolar system has two predominant states or two great rival alliance blocs (Waltz, 1964, p.887) as the world was during the Cold War and is said to be the one of the safest situations globally by some. This is true because as powers react to one another, as long as they are of relative strength, they will attempt to keep one another

Get Access