Right, I mentioned the rational actor bit, although fortunately people have been rational enough so far and in aggregate. I think some leaders with nukes aren't

Right, I mentioned the rational actor bit, although fortunately people have been rational enough so far and in aggregate. I think some leaders with nukes aren't very stable/bright too but I don't think even they are irrational enough to start a nuclear war. If you're alluding to Trump/Un, Trump knows that a first strike against NK would result in a huge and terrible war with China, and Un knows that a first strike would result in his and his country's destruction. The perfect information point is important too. However, historically we've still been extremely lucky. When false alarms or faulty data have indicated that another country had used nukes against the other, the defender has never fought back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command#False_alarms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov Really I think MAD is the best option for us, given that nuclear technology exists and can't be unlearned from the world. How does one enforce a denuclearized world without military might? The only solution I can think of is something like a mutual carte-blanche to investigate other countries' facilities for evidence of nuclear proliferation. Given that this represents a considerable risk for things like military bases or facilities producing new military technology, I have a hard time believing countries like China, Russia, and the US would be ok with this.