If a polite society is an armed society, is a polite world one where all states have nukes?

The authors of the new SIPRI study agree that the effects of proliferation may never be turned back, noting that despite the numeric decrease in warheads, all nine nuclear powers are "either developing or deploying new weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so." SIPRI estimated that the US alone plans to spend up to $1 trillion on "nuclear weapon modernization" over the next three decades, "in stark contrast to" Obama’s earlier pledges to commit to arms reduction, according to SIPRI associate senior fellow and study co-author Hans Kristensen.

"Despite the ongoing reduction in the number of weapons, the prospects for genuine progress towards nuclear disarmament remain gloomy," SIPRI Nuclear Weapons Project head and study co-author Shannon Kile said in an institute release. "All the nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to prioritize nuclear deterrence as the cornerstone of their national security strategies."

Rocinante wrote:What they mean by "polite" is that everybody is worried that if they fuck off somebody will shoot them. So is forced "politeness" through the threat of gun violence really politeness?

I know you know that, but... well... whatever.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:I hope I'm dead and buried before Pakistan "loses" a few nukes and they end up irreversibly fucking up the planet.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:What they mean by "polite" is that everybody is worried that if they fuck off somebody will shoot them. So is forced "politeness" through the threat of gun violence really politeness?

I know you know that, but... well... whatever.

That's an interesting point, Roc. But can we still let all of the countries in the world have nukes? Forced politeness between countries is a bit different than forced politeness between individuals in society.