[raccoonDivider]

Isn't there a middle ground? Suppose we could make ICBMs useless (known storage sites for bombers and ground-based missiles, lots of time and distance to track and destroy them in the air) while shorter-range weapons stayed relevant (smaller, easier to move, maybe spread over a battlefield). This could both keep the cost of a war too high to consider for great powers, while greatly lowering the civilizational risk caused by thousands of high-yield weapons on hair trigger.

For example, a border war between India and Pakistan or China would be a disaster that no side wants to see. But a massive ICBM launch due to tensions and miscalculations between the three biggest arsenals would have a much lower impact. These arsenals might even become irrelevant enough that they stop being maintained. Seems like a win-win?