[Cyph0n]

The only long-term equilibrium states are: no one does or everyone does.

[dragonwriter]

“Everyone does” have nuclear weapons, where “everyone” includes more than one independent sovereignty, is not a long-term equilibrium state, it is a metastable state, prone to rapid devolution to “no one does”, possibly with a side order if “there is no one to”.

[Cyph0n]

I don’t know what you are responding to.

I clearly stated that equilibrium is only attainable if everyone has access to nuclear weapons - as in every single sovereign nation - or no one.

I prefer an equilibrium of the latter kind.

[dragonwriter]

I am responding to you, and disagreeing with your claim that the first of your options is a viable long-term equilibrium, contending that that is only true under the degenerate condition of a single sovereignty, otherwise it is a metastable state [0], not a stable long-term equilibrium.

[0] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...

[Cyph0n]

Ah I now see what you mean. I somehow misread your comment as “a single state with nuclear power implies everyone does”. Thanks for clarifying.

[Ekaros]

I prefer later. As nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. A country with larger conventional army won't be able to bully smaller one... And you really need that sort of capability for equilibrium.

[Log_out_]

That gives you constant empire driven world wars. With those weaker and in danger of getting annexed trying to get nukes desperately.

Maybe consider real humans while evaluating game theory?