Editing Nuclear proliferation (section)

===Arguments against both positions===
There are numerous arguments presented against both selective and total proliferation, generally targeting the very neorealist assumptions (such as the primacy of [[national security|military security]] in state agendas, the weakness of [[international institution]]s, and the long-run unimportance of [[economic integration]] and [[globalization]] to state strategy) its proponents tend to make. With respect to Mearsheimer's specific example of Europe, many [[economist]]s and [[neoliberalism in international relations|neoliberals]] argue that the [[European integration|economic integration of Europe]] through the development of the [[European Union]] has made war in most of the European continent so disastrous economically so as to serve as an effective deterrent. [[Constructivism in international relations|Constructivists]] take this one step further, frequently arguing that the development of EU political institutions has led or will lead to the development of a nascent [[European identity]], which most states on the European continent wish to partake in to some degree or another, and which makes all states within or aspiring to be within the EU regard war between them as unthinkable.

As for Waltz, the general opinion is that most states are not in a position to safely guard against nuclear use, that he underestimates the long-standing antipathy in many regions, and that weak states will be unable to prevent—or will actively provide for—the disastrous possibility of nuclear terrorism. Waltz has dealt with all of these objections at some point in his work, though some scholars feel he has not adequately responded (e.g.: Betts, 2000).

The Learning Channel documentary Doomsday: "On The Brink" illustrated 40 years of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons accidents. Even the 1995 [[Norwegian rocket incident]] demonstrated a potential scenario in which Russian democratization and military downsizing at the end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger of accidental nuclear war through command and control errors. After asking: might a future Russian ruler or renegade Russian general be tempted to use nuclear weapons to make foreign policy? The documentary writers revealed a greater danger of Russian security over its nuclear stocks, but especially the ultimate danger of human nature to want the ultimate [[weapon of mass destruction]] to exercise political and military power. According to the documentary, the Soviets, Russians, and Americans came very close to global catastrophe. History and military experts agree that proliferation can be slowed, but never stopped (technology cannot be uninvented).<ref>Doomsday: On The Brink, The Learning Channel, 1997</ref>