Sitting on the razor's edge

Concluding her recent book on nuclear war, Annie Jacobsen writes:

Nuclear war is insane. Every person I interviewed for this book knows this. Every person. The whole premise of using nuclear weapons is madness. It is irrational. And yet here we are. Russian president Vladimir Putin recently said that he is “not bluffing” about the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction. North Korea recently accused the U.S. of having “a sinister intention to provoke a nuclear war.” We all sit on the razor’s edge. Nuclear War: A Scenario, Annie Jacobsen, March 2024

Each step along this razor's edge was taken rationally given the incentives on offer, and historical precedent, which tells us that if someone else, enemy or not, has a decisive weapon in their artillery, then we had better acquire one too. These individually justifiable steps have taken us, collectively, to the brink of nuclear exchange. (The term 'nuclear war' isn't really apt, as it's likely the exchange would take place over hours rather than years.) It speaks to the madness of humanity's current condition that we are at a point where our best hopes for nuclear deterrence lie in having leaders who are, or who appear to be, irrational (pdf).

Where do we go from here? The technology to develop and deliver nuclear weapons (which also doesn't sound right - they're not for fighting, they're for killing whole populations) can't be wiped from our collective memory - except by their use, which would wipe out our collective memory and all of humanity and most other life besides.

Under the current system, while the total number of weapons has shrunk, the number of countries that own them has risen. The knowledge and materials needed to build them are widely, and increasingly, available worldwide. There's little to deter state and non-state actors, from doing their best to acquire them.

Numerous actors are making efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. They aren't, though, rewarded in ways that are linked to their success or otherwise in their mission. This does not mean that they aren't working as hard as they can, nor that they are not sufficiently motivated. It means that they have fewer resources at their command with which to continue with their current efforts and to explore other, perhaps more effective, approaches.

My suggestion is that, with the need for diverse, adaptive approaches, interested governments, NGOs, and others collectively back and issue Nuclear Peace Bonds. These bonds would reward the sustained achievement of nuclear peace, however it's brought about, and whoever helps achieves it. Effectively, the bonds would be paying people to stop other people initiating mass annihilation. It's some way short of ideal, but it is better than where we appear to be heading. Ms Jacobsen continues:

What if deterrence fails? “Humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned the world in the fall of 2022. “This is madness,” he says. “We must reverse course.” How true. The fundamental idea behind this book is to demonstrate, in appalling detail, just how horrifying nuclear war would be.