I mean, all treaties are at risk of failure from bad actors, even implicit ones like mutually-assured-destruction, and in the later case it has been shown to be

I mean, all treaties are at risk of failure from bad actors, even implicit ones like mutually-assured-destruction, and in the later case it has been shown to be incredibly effective. But I don't feel like grinding the threat of powerful weapons against each other to be a particularly wise long term solution to security. I think it's a pretty obvious ipso facto that the more, and more advanced weapons, that are placed into the global battlefield, the less actual security (in life and liberty) we can expect. The problem isn't that there are adversaries that are willing to sacrifice their people, almost every war is one of attrition after all, it's that leaders that would be adversaries like this are inevitable in a governmental structure that is delegated a monopoly on violence.