Global politics has changed with unaccustomed swiftness since the end of the Cold War. Eastern Europe is free; the Soviet Union has broken up; China presses free market economic reform; and the United States and Russia have declared a joint commitment to end nuclear war. The force of these changes has created a new agenda for global politics and security policy. This does not mean that nuclear weapons have lost their centrality. Nuclear development programs continue in the major holders of advanced weapons. In Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran nuclear intentions are subject to widespread speculation and scrutiny. Negotiations for renewal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remind us that the treaty requires serious efforts to abolish nuclear weapons. Nuclear Choices points out that the Cold War's end has not banished mistrust. Instead, it has opened the door to frank conversation about the usefulness of force and the need to address common fears. States now face a global choice among alternative nuclear futures. If they desire to avoid runaway nuclear development, the choices come down to three: the status quo, disengagement, or abolition. Larkin argues that if they chose the status quo, they elect a world in which only terror and self-restraint keep devastation at bay, a world in which instant destruction is possible. This study focuses on the nuclear weapons programs of Great Britain, China, and France, because they may be less familiar to students of international affairs. Each of these countries has developed a substantial nuclear capability that could decisively shape the result of coming global nuclear decisions. Larkin concludes that these three minipowers could conclude that nuclearism serves their interests, refuse disengagement, and encourage proliferation. If they are prepared to abandon nuclearism, they have tremendous political leverage on Russia, the United States, and also on undeclared and aspiring nuclear weapons states. For now, only the United Kingdom, France, and China maintain sufficient warhead inventories and production capabilities to have strong effects on how the United States and Russia view their own strategic capabilities. Nuclear Choices asserts that governments, polities, and parties today do not know how to guarantee themselves against weapons of mass destruction. They must either acquire the political and social means to achieve such guarantees or accept a world in which nuclearism will continue to cast its shadow over all aspects of nation building. It will be of interest to political scientists, policymakers, military analysts, and those interested hi the nuclear issue.

This work canvasses nuclear weapon abolition, proposals placed on the table since 1945 and the obstacles and issues which a realistic program for abolition confronts today. It has an ambitious purpose, to show that nuclear abolition can and should be placed on the public agenda.a The author terms it interpretive in that it incorporates his commentaries, never hiding his reasons and judgments. It is neither "just the facts" nor "all the facts." It is an encyclopedia in the original meaning of "a general course of instruction." He identifies himself with all who pursue the problem posed by nuclear weapons systematically and with seriousness of purpose, committed to self-instruction. In another sense, he writes, this work is a conversation with the Reader. What is needed to abolish nuclear weapons? His starting-point is this: As long as nuclear weapons are stockpiled and deployed there is risk of their use, which would be catastrophic. Abolition, however, is inconceivable in the absence of a developed and articulated alternative to the nuclear status quo. Even with that, the politics of abolition, bringing the governments of the nuclear weapon states to believe that abolition is in their interest, is the sine qua non of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Larkin's text is written for those, whether practitioners or citizens, interested in designing and bringing about denuclearization. Abolition cannot be achieved by political elites in the absence of broad concurrent public support. Governments, career policy officials and legislators have chosen to assume responsibility for the public agenda. They may be askedimust be asked,what they will do to bring about denuclearization.