Nuclear weapons differ by a tradition of their nonuse

Evidence

What makes atomic weapons different is a powerful tradition that they are different. The reason—in answer to the usual rhetorical question—why we do not ban bows and arrows on the grounds that they too, like nuclear weapons, kill and maim people, is that there is a tradition for the use of bows and arrows, a jointly recognized expectation that they will be used if it is expedient to use them. There is no such tradition for the use of atomic weapons. There is instead a tradition for their nonuse—a jointly recognized expectation that they may not be used in spite of declarations of readiness to use them, even in spite of tactical advantages in their use. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 597

Categorization

• SHARE: The bows-and-arrows reframe of the nuclear question is a perfect conversational hook for any policy/interstate-conflict friend.
• XREF: connects to: Dominant weapons become obsolete when their intended fights never occur — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 456; Fungibility arguments fail because tradition governs war limits — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 595; Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (+1 more)

Related

• Nuclear weapons make war as an instrument of policy obsolete (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Dominant weapons become obsolete when their intended fights never occur #corroborates (0.82) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 456
• Fungibility arguments fail because tradition governs war limits #expands (0.80) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 595
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights #exemplifies (0.78)
• Nuclear threat persists because destructive knowledge is ineliminable and mistrust feeds itself #expands (0.75)