Decentralised Nuclear Deterrent (DNT) network, a social organization for the network-state
Decentralised Nuclear Deterrent (DNT) network for a distributed, autonomous network of nuclear weapons, as a deterrent against war, a type of social organisation that builds on the game theoretical foundation of nuclear deterrence theory[1], achieving an equilibrium through a free market with free trade. If the proposition that nuclear weapons have saved more lives than they have killed is true, then in the words of Adam Smith, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.
The roots of the Decentralised Nuclear Deterrent (DNT) network can be found in the second amendment in the United States of America, the right to bear arms, also rooted in deterrent theory of which nuclear deterrence theory is a sub-field (also of course in anarchy and similar, but as a formal protocol, in second amendment. )
Nuclear terrorism theory contradicts nuclear deterrence theory
Narratives are a result of bias, in-group bias, and similar, and so in the Westphalia consensus trance the idea that nuclear weapons may fall into the "wrong hands" is seen as a negative idea, but if nuclear deterrence theory is seen as valid, then the opposite is true, if nuclear weapons proliferate outside the Westphalia construct, that will lead to increased stability (again, if nuclear deterrence theory is true. )
Nuclear deterrence theory and a free market for conspiring around agendas
If nuclear deterrence theory is valid, then, the logical conclusion is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, globally, freely. To have a free market for conspiring around sovereign agendas, including nuclear weapons, is what nuclear deterrence theory proposes (statist interpretations are just that, false and a bit like being dumb. )
References
1 ) Nuclear Deterrence Theory: The Search for Credibility (1990)
I wont support any WMD distribution. More distribution of WMDs in my opinion makes us all less safe. Better is to see these weapons destroyed.
The reason more distribution makes us less safe is people aren't rational. Governments and large enough corporations perhaps can be rational but then you're centralized again. Game theory only works when there are rational agents involved.
A similar argument I can make for why total information symmetry isn't necessarily going to make us safer. If the crowd is better armed, but still incapable of wisdom, still incapable of morality, it makes us less safe.
Rational agent
In economics, game theory, decision theory, and artificial intelligence, a rational agent is an agent that has clear preferences, models uncertainty via expected values of variables or functions of variables, and always chooses to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome for itself from among all feasible actions. A rational agent can be anything that makes decisions, typically a person, firm, machine, or software.
Rational agents are also studied in the fields of cognitive science, ethics, and philosophy, including the philosophy of practical reason.
A free market for nuclear weapons is the logical conclusion of nuclear deterrent theory, so, this post highlights the contradiction in 1) justifying nuclear weapons with nuclear deterrent theory while 2) using narratives like nuclear terrorism theory. Those are contradictions, and if nuclear deterrent theory is true, it will self-organize into DNTs, and if it is not true, then it is not true, either way it has an effect on a common narrative.
And, game theory does not only work with rational agents, or, the definition of rational is in the context of games, to act in proportion to the game, it is up to the games to be better, not for human nature to conform, that was always a nonsense idea from the beginning.
It's logical based on the balance of powers theory but it only applies to rational agents (centralized governments). Human agents aren't capable of being rational agents and even if they were they aren't capable of securing their nuclear weapons from the irrational agents. That is why there is centralization, to keep WMDs away from the people who want to actually use them.
Rational is in the context of games. What nuclear deterrence theory says is not that, within the game theory of the Westphalian construct, this and that applies. It's generic. Of course, people could develop and promote a Westphalia-centric nuclear deterrence theory if they want, nothing limits them to the generic one.
I'd guess that if nukes were controlled with crypto and anything close to the entire population of a country had to vote to use them... it would depend on the voting requirements if they ever were used. Anything close to 66%+ would likely result in NO use ever again.
What nuclear deterrence theory says, is that an equilibrium self-organizes. And, with crypto, no countries, countries are older "technology", will be a network with competing entities, just like how the idea of nuclear deterrence theory is rooted in competition.
Only rational behavior is predictable. How can game theory work for irrational agents when they could do something unpredictable by the simulations? Computers run simulations which predict all possible rational moves in advance. The more players there are the harder to predict things get, and irrational players would seemingly throw off all the simulations, all the game theory.
For example Bitcoin mining works on game theory but it only works because it's based on the assumption that the agents involved will pursue strategies to maximize cost efficiency. That is to get the most rewards for the least cost. What if the attackers of the Bitcoin mining were a religious cult? Suddenly all these economic assumptions might not make as much sense. The whole idea of "economic firewall" might only make sense based on the assumption of rationality.
And that is just it, game theory doesn't work as well in practice as it does in the books or in simulations. It works fantastic when it's dealing with governments, corporations, sufficiently sophisticated investors, as these sorts of entities make decisions by the numbers. It doesn't work so well for people who make decisions off their gut or because God spoke to them or because the voice of God (or satan) told them to do it.
To act in proportion to a game, rational, contextual to the games used, and, games are meant to conform to human nature, not the other way around (not even possible. ) Politics is game theoretical models, tough less advanced, older, and religious organization as well tough less planned.
The only way something like your idea could work is if you could guarantee that 100% of actors in the network will remain rational 100% of the time. Because you cannot guarantee this and the risks are so great I would say it's a very bad idea.