Weapons proliferation reflects the inevitable diffusion of power across civilizations.

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 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Today’s world is a quagmire of rivalries and factions, ethnic disputes, and religious wars, and the last thing we need is for large and unknowable numbers of these players to be armed with weapons of mass destruction. Even when the safety of the world lay in the hands of just two governments—each a superpower acutely aware of the destructive consequences of their deadliest weapons, and each having layers of safeguards in place to prevent a misfire—we still almost escalated to nuclear war in at least two instances. Now, decisions of catastrophic life and death lie in the hands of many more governments and, in some cases, even in the hands of rogue individuals. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 610 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Civilization-level nuclear proliferation could produce stability rather than chaos — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 888; Weapon evolution and deterrence form a self-accelerating spiral. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 390; Proliferating nuclear weapons increase the risk of accidental world-ending war — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 610 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Civilization-level nuclear proliferation could produce stability rather than chaos #complicates (0.78) — Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the…, 888
• Proliferating nuclear weapons increase the risk of accidental world-ending war #complicates (0.76) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 610