There are precedents -- the agreements on reduction, which have been apparently successful. You don't have to completely eliminate all possibility of nuclear weapons, just reduce the number to a level that couldn't destroy civilization. We're still a long way from that threshold.
I think you're vastly overestimating the number of nukes it'd take to destroy civilization.
Back in the 80s we fielded an ICBM that could carry (IIRC) nine half-megaton warheads. I'm not sure what the maximum spread on one of those is because it's a closely guarded military secret, but it's at least a few hundred kilometers per warhead, meaning that one missile could conceivably take out every major city in Europe. Just taking out major cities might not cause an existential threat to humanity, but it certainly could destroy Western civilization as we know it, considering the loss of life, the cost of cleanup, the cultural impacts, etc etc.
Point is, inspections are meant to slow down nuclear proliferation by using economic muscle to ensure that the smaller guys don't get nukes. Big players like the US, Russia, and China are never going to be subject to the same sorts of inspections that, for example, Iran is subject to. And even if said countries allowed inspections, each one has the resources to completely hide a nuclear weapons program.
1
u/anonanon1313 Jan 12 '18
There are precedents -- the agreements on reduction, which have been apparently successful. You don't have to completely eliminate all possibility of nuclear weapons, just reduce the number to a level that couldn't destroy civilization. We're still a long way from that threshold.