Is Nuclear Proliferation Contagious? Authors: William Potter, CNS Director Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, Research Associate

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies

The spread of nuclear weapons is a danger, but if one nation should decide to disavow its nonproliferation commitments, there is little reason to expect an epidemic.

 

Judging by the comments of most political figures, scholars and media pundits, regardless of political orientation, the future of nuclear proliferation is bleak.
This time, the sky is surely falling. At the very least, the world is at a "tipping point" in the direction of a nuclear armed crowd with far more countries actively pursuing and acquiring nuclear weapons. On this point, Hillary Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ban Ki-moon and John McCain all agree.
This proliferation pessimism often finds expression in metaphors about nuclear dominoes, chains, cascades and waves. In most cases the gloomy scenario anticipates a reactive process in which Iran's "going nuclear" leads to decisions by other states in the region and possibly elsewhere to follow suit in quick succession.
Such prognoses are often cited in support of arguments for urgent action to stop Iran's nuclear program. And yet, as was the case with the "domino theory" of the spread of Communism, little evidence is marshaled to support assertions about reactive proliferation.
A review of declassified U.S. national intelligence estimates (NIEs), as well as scholarly prognoses, shows that nuclear alarmism has been a feature of U.S. threat assessments throughout most of the nuclear age.
The catalysts for projections of rapid proliferation and the characteristics of "threshold states" have changed over time, but past forecasts have routinely overestimated the pace of proliferation.

More at link:http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100923_contagious_iht.htm