ABSTRACT
This chapter analyzes nuclear proliferation from the standpoint of two distinct and competing Realist theories – structural realism and security materialism. The problem with structural realism is not, as many critics have alleged, that it is too Realist because it places too much importance upon the role of violence capabilities and the state in world politics. Rather structural realism has drifted towards increasingly idealized and formalized conceptualizations of world politics and away from Realist fundamentals on the logics of violence capabilities and their role in shaping security institutions and systems. The assessment of each of the competing Realist approaches to nuclear proliferation proceeds in three steps, from basic theoretical claims, to arguments about nuclear weapons generally, and then to arguments about nuclear proliferation. Steve Weber argues that the limitations of structural realism in understanding nuclear weapons can be overcome by modifying it.
