Proliferation or Monopoly?
“The problem of nuclear proliferation is an old one, dating when the United States used nuclear weapons on Japan. The problem resurfaces each time a new nation develops nuclear weapons: the Soviet Union in 1949, the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1962, and China and India in 1974. Israel claims to have nuclear weapons; Brazil, South Africa, and Argentina could but have stopped development; and Iran, Iraq, and probably others (e.g., North Korea) have expressed the desire to have them.
If nuclear weapons in the hands of governments present a real or perceived threat of intrusion or invasion among their neighbors, we can expect smaller nations to move to protect their territory and political independence through nuclear weapons production or acquisition. The French government used this argument against the American nuclear program when Charles De Gaulle came to power in 1945. At the same time, technological and political changes have reduced the cost of acquiring nuclear weapons. Further, technological progress should make possible the miniaturization of these weapons. Small organizations could someday have access to them. This possible proliferation is currently considered a curse, not a blessing. Why? Mainly because everyone fears that such a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction combined with advanced means for their delivery intensities "the problem of ensuring global security," as Dagobert Brito and Michael Intriligator wrote recently in Economic Affairs.” (pages 127-128)
“IS NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION A BLESSING?
Yes it is. Why? Because things that are good for us are good for others. The terror equilibrium was a guarantor of peace in Europe during the cold war. Without it, the Soviets might have been tempted to invade Europe. When there are no nuclear weapons there are classic wars, which can result in massacres comparable to those seen with the use of conventional weapons in the world wars. The Iran/Iraq war is a case in point: If both sides had had nuclear weapons, they might have hesitated to enter the conflict, saving millions of lives.
Possession of nuclear weapons by all players is a good and not a bad. Indeed, the more countries possess such dissuasive weapons, the wider will be the territory of peace and stability as experienced in Europe throughout the cold war. There have to be serious reasons to prohibit certain countries from owning such means of dissuading potential aggressors.
This sort of support of nuclear arms proliferation is natural for economists but heretical for noneconomists. The countries who are members of the nuclear club form a cartel that is looking to protect its monopoly in respect to other countries. They even use violence in order to prevent countries they do not like from obtaining nuclear technology. If nuclear weapons reduce the possibility of armed conflicts, i.e., protect human lives and territory from external invaders and violence, it means nuclear weapons possession is efficient.
This point of view is increasingly shared by Western military strategists, many of whom believe countries willing to obtain such weapons should be helped and not considered outlaws. An article by J. Fitchett in the International Herald Tribune notes this change in opinion among military advisers. But Fitchett claims that if proliferation prevails, the risk of conflict increases due to everyone's inability to control everyone else's dissuasion. Pentagon experts note that when communication between the USSR and the U.S. was limited, it minimized provocative behavior. Fitchett continues: With territories like Asia and the Middle East, nationalistic passion and irrational behavior are reality. Those leaders frequently are autocratic and are ready to destroy their countries in a nuclear conflict just to satisfy their interests or territorial appetites. Even though the 1991 Iraq conflict showed the opposite (Saddam Hussein did not dare use chemical weapons under the nuclear threat of Israel and the U.S.), we cannot extrapolate this to a world where nuclear weapons are commonplace. We should not forget that nuclear conflict is not local and it can affect, as did the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, uninvolved third parties. This argument is not new - it is similar to the one used by French medical doctors, who in the name of protecting consumers are impeding the sale of drugs in supermarkets. Another argument holds that competition in airline services leads to an increase in accidents due to airlines' failing to invest sufficiently in safety under the pressure of competition. This has proven to be false. All defenders of monopolies and cartels use such arguments including the one concerning nuclear weapons.” (pages 138 - 140)
