A world with one or two nuclear-armed core states per civilization could be stable

Evidence

While nuclear proliferation obviously involves risks, as Scott Sagan and others have pointed out, a world in which one or two core states in each of the major civilizations had nuclear weapons and no other states did could be a reasonably stable world. — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 888 (#expands, via linked claim)

On a beach, if two midsized crabs launch into full battle it’s not likely to matter much for everybody else. But we’re not on that beach. Weapons of mass destruction are cheap enough now that most midsized states have them, or if they don’t yet, they soon will, and the destructive power of these weapons is so great that their use anywhere, even once, has the potential to unravel civilization on a global scale. If weapons of mass destruction are part of the equation, then we can’t let any confrontation escalate. Ever. But stopping them all is a tall order. A mere glance at our present political map shows hot spots with deadly potential—rivalries poised and ready to flare into full war. North Korea versus South Korea; India versus Pakistan; Israel versus Iran—all of these nations stand toe-to-toe with equally matched rivals, and all either already have or will soon have weapons of mass destruction. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 608 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Islamic nuclear proliferation could threaten Hindu and Jewish civilizations too; Civilization-level nuclear proliferation could produce stability rather than chaos — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 888; Civilizations lacking a core state struggle to get conflicts mediated — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 425 (+2 more)

Broader Connections