The point about stable systems, from a game-theory perspective, is that they are hard to change. Any change ends up being worse. That's why MAD has lasted so lo

The point about stable systems, from a game-theory perspective, is that they are hard to change. Any change ends up being worse. That's why MAD has lasted so long and why I called it "stable". I think you agree with me on that. I went too far in a counterfactual Ukraine war without MAD. If we had eliminated nuclear weapons, history would be so different that there's no way a similar Ukraine war would have happened. I agree with you about that. But I don't think it's too controversial to say that MAD prevented one or more conventional wars. Would a world without nukes be a safer world? Maybe. If nuclear weapons get used again and kill millions, then clearly it was a bad bet. But if we get to 2045--100 years after Hiroshima--without a nuclear exchange, then maybe MAD was the worst idea except for all the others.