The claim is that atomic weapons introduced no fresh dilemma. The dilemma already existed: nations settle disputes by force, and no institution has the authority to stop them. What changed was the cost of failure, which rose to a level at which the consequences could no longer be absorbed.

The distinction between quantitative and qualitative change carries the argument. A quantitative change alters the magnitude of something without altering its nature, so on this reading the task facing humanity is the same one it always faced, only with the margin for delay removed. The remedy sought is therefore political rather than technical.

An objection is that a difference of scale can become a difference of kind. If a weapon can end civilisation rather than decide a war, some argue, the situation is not simply the old problem magnified but a genuinely new condition.