This was broadly the position of one of the most influential theorists in international relations (IR), Kenneth Waltz. His paper "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better” is a great read. [1]
From his conclusion: "Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been. They express fears that many felt when they imagined how a nuclear China would behave. Such fears have proved un-rounded as nuclear weapons have slowly spread. I have found many reasons for believing that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future."
Option 3 is better than option 2 because it is more likely that a country with WMD will use them against a country without them (for fear of retaliation). Option 3 is an equal standoff.
The benefit of option 2 over option 3 is that in the case where just enough countries have WMDs so that if anyone drops a WMD someone will respond but no other countries do you also minimize the number of surfaces for mistakes/abuses.
On the other hand, one could make the argument that, if Somalia had nuclear weapons, the world community would be incentivized to establish and maintain a secure government there. Not sure if I buy this argument, but I think it's worth considering.
Thought experiment: option 1 is chosen, and the world proceeds to spend the the next 50-100 years obsessing over whose WMDs, exactly, have any nonzero chances of ever, ever misfiring.
Humanity embarks on a top-down superoptimization campaign to perfect technology to the point that this question can be answered with ever-increasingly-higher levels of detail.
Follow-on: the question of whether the ensuing yak shaving causes us to realize the WMDs are unnecessary, or whether military-driven paperclip maximization accidentally wipes out humanity.
> Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity.
That doesn't work either—some country will defect and develop WMDs in secret and then take over the world. Of the choices you present, the only reasonable option is ubiquitous access to WMDs (option 3), with the understanding that anyone found using them for any purpose other than a proportional response to a existential threat will be ruthlessly annihilated by everyone else.
>the understanding that anyone found using them for any purpose other than a proportional response to a existential threat will be ruthlessly annihilated by everyone else
I don't understand how this outcome results in anything other than the extinction of human life on this planet.
> Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity.
Who says that's everyone's goal? There are plenty of people in the world, and even in this forum, who only care about saving "some" of humanity. And in topics about the environment or population, you'll find people (even on this forum) who aren't interested in saving any of it.
> Can game theory not be of use here?
Probably, but only if you understand the actual rules people are playing.
This model is only valid under the assumption that all countries are equal, as that is not the case we find ourselves somewhere in a multidimensional, temporal, observer-relative, non-euclidean, indeterminate, irreducibly complex, continuous "option 2".
Options 1 and 2 have been tested through time. It seems that option 2 actually makes for less wars and less deaths from war than option 1, so there is a progress.
Should we test option 3, and how do we roll back if it doesn't work out and turns out to be the worst option ?
People in the USA own a lot of firearms and there are more firearm-related crimes and accidents in the USA compared to countries with low rates of firearm ownership.
The USA is a big place, and the "firearm-related" crimes you're referring to are predominately in large urbanized areas where firearm ownership is prohibited.
>large urbanized areas where firearm ownership is prohibited
Which is why we need national action. Criminals in Chicago buy firearms in neighboring Indiana, criminals in New York City buy firearms in neighboring Connecticut.
The parallel to atomic weapons is similar. If many nations own atomic weapons, it's easier for an unstable/untrustworthy state to acquire them.
Obviously the criminals get their firearms from somewhere else since they can't be purchased legally inside the city, but you'll never eliminate every possible source. Even if you put up a massive wall and have 100% success in eliminating smuggling (which is obviously impossible) these things just aren't that hard to manufacture locally using commonly available and benign tools and materials. Criminals will still have them, and regular citizens will have an even harder time defending themselves.
1. No countries should own WMD.
2. Some countries can and others can't.
3. All countries should own WMD.
Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity. The next best choice is surely 3 - not 2!
Thoughts?