The obvious answer is to have no nuclear weapons. But everyone will think to themselves "We got rid of our nukes, but if they still have a few then we could be totally totally screwed."

The more feasible way is arms limitation. Let's say you go from having enough nukes to destroy the entire planet to merely having enough to end your opponent's civilization as we know it. But the more alliances means the more enemies or even targets on your own side.

10,000 to 1,000 is relatively easy. 1,000 to 100 is very very hard. <100 will probably never happen :(

I kinda feel like that 'safest' option, even when including the 'no nukes' option, is for stable and rational powers to have lots of nukes, and probably a 'fail-deadly' doomsday machine type setup. If they're all rational, and all know about each other's doomsday machines/deadman's switch, they wouldn't attack each other as it would be tantamount to suicide.

Of course, things start to get a bit dicey when you add not so rational nuclear powers in to the mix (e.g. North Korea), or diversion of nuclear bombs to not so rational 'non-state actors'.

> If they're all rational

I feel you, but that assumption is where this argument diverges from reality.

I've read that many people consider the "both sides have few nukes" dangerous. One side may think they can strike first, either conventionally or with some of their own nukes and disable their opponent's ability to retaliate. With thousands of warheads that isn't possible.

Similarly, the complete removal from the earth of nuclear weapons could potentially make the world much more dangerous. Without the threat of nuclear annihilation conventional war between large nations becomes more conceivable.

It would take more time than a nuclear exchange but it is possible to inflict comparable levels of destruction through conventional warfare if you have multiple nations sending millions of humans into battle as part of a war that drags on.

A perhaps unforeseen consequence of the development of nuclear weapons is the marked decrease in war deaths since their introduction at the end of world war 2 [0]. The Long Peace (as it is called in [1]) may be due to a number of other causes, but nuclear deterrence between the major powers has to be included as a factor. Of course, this decrease in war deaths could be reversed instantly in just one bad nuclear day.

[0]. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace-after-1945/ [1]. http://www.fallen.io/ww2/

I think the source is lacking larger context. For example, postwar reconstruction in Europe ushered in an unprecedented age of European states not going to war with each other all the time. So if you measure absolute numbers of war deaths declining, you can't attribute them directly to nuclear weapons.

Also, advances in medicine have significantly reduced the number of deaths in war. It's worth noting that in the American civil war, the vast majority of deaths on both sides were attributed to non-combat disease.

So maybe you have a point, but I doubt that it's as simple as more nukes = less deaths.

I recently watched "Command And Control" (http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com) on a whim. I hadn't read up about the film before seeing it, so I understood "nuclear missile accident" to mean, presumably, almost accidentally firing a warhead -- a more-or-less standard nuclear nightmare.

This, of course, is not what happened. The Damascus Titan accident did not involve a nuclear weapon being mistakenly, but intentionally, armed. The very real fear was, instead, that the explosion of a damaged missile could accidentally detonate the warhead as well -- or, in a case only slightly better, blast it into radioactive dust.

I'd never considered the risk entailed by the simple existence -- intentional use entirely aside -- of nuclear weapons. Reading the list of (public!) broken arrow incidents is harrowing.

It's not unstable, it's metastable. Metastability being dependent on any party only being able to start if by consensus of many people, and most people deeply understand it that whatever certainty level you have, the rational choice is still to not launch the nukes, as you have never anything to gain by that.

The huge problem with the Dr. Strangelove situation is that it broke that first condition there.

Is it an unstable solution? Are we assuming full rationality here, or is this the 'crazy commander' type scenario? Strangely, I can't help but think the situation becomes more stable if both sides actually have 'doomsday machines' (that they tell each other about).

Nuclear weapons present a very weird trade-off. On the positive side, I'd argue they greatly reduce the chance of total war between nuclear powers, almost to the point of it being unthinkable. Of course it sucks for whichever country they're fighting a proxy-war in, but better than the whole world I guess. On the other hand, there's a slim chance at any given moment someone will do something crazy or some system will malfunction and every living thing on the planet gets vaporised.

The thing that scares me is the possibility of tactical nukes. As the old saying goes: "one man's big tactical nuke is another man's little strategic nuke". Or something like that...

Nuclear weapons exist for more than 70 years, and we managed to live through it without starting a nuclear war. This is impressive, considering less than amicable US-Russian relationships, Caribbean crisis, countless proxy wars, spy games, technical glitches, terrorist plots, and the overall craziness of the era (those who worry about the mind state and escapades of Mr. Trump today, usually don't remember or can't imagine what a usual day during the Cold War used to look like, either from Russian or American side).

Our human civilization is very young. Our governments sometimes resort to the level of discourse more appropriate for 5 year old boys fighting in a sandbox. But apparently some toys look dangerous enough to be put on the shelf and never touched without adult supervision.

On the other hand, 70 years is a blink in the span of human history so far. I think people have been much too quick to assume, ever since the Soviet Union fell, that we avoided World War III and proved we'd never use nuclear weapons again. We're still far too close to extinction-level wars for my comfort.

I hope I'm not committing some faux pas replying to such an old thread...

There are a bunch of hypotheses about why we have yet to encounter or discover other intelligent life in our galaxy/universe (or, more specifically, the Fermi Paradox). Two seem particularly relevant here:

(a) 'It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself': There is some period of technological development where the odds of self-extinction become extremely high (e.g. the relatively recent development of nuclear weapons... for example...).

(b) 'It is the nature of super intelligent life to destroy others': Intelligent species past a certain point of technological capability will destroy other intelligent species as they emerge. A species might undertake such extermination out of expansionist motives or even just rational and prudent self-interest: an intelligent species that has overcome its own self-destructive tendencies might view other advanced species as a potential threat. A highly advanced alien species would also likely be a super-predator (as are humans).

I used to find it reassuring, too, that mankind went through these crises without starting global nuclear war.

But lately I began wondering how much of it is survivor bias and thinking that we cannot extrapolate this into the future.