Abstract
 This essay identifies a difference of opinion over the role of nuclear weapons as an absolute deterrent as the basis for the theoretical disagreement between Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer regarding whether security is attained through the maintenance of the status quo or through the aggressive elimination of potential rivals. The essay traces the writings of both scholars over a period of decades to demonstrate how Waltz has come to regard nuclear weapons as making conquest so unprofitable that possessing them provides absolute security. It also shows how Mearsheimer holds a more ambiguous position on the deterrent strength of nuclear weapons, which helps to explain why he believes that states still seek security through offensive action. The essay offers a guide to show how these important theories influence and shape current policy debates over the proliferation of nuclear weapons to both state and nonstate actors.
PDF