The strategy that we have decided from our different worldviews is to take the solution from the reformers, which are the social democrats and seek for global governance and cooperation, i.e., give the terrorists an Islamic state in exchange for the nuclear weapons. By having mutual benefits for the terrorists and the nuclear weapon states, collective security is achieved and it can keep the risk to war at minimal.
We think that the maintainers would also agree on this because by giving the terrorists a state doesn't infringe with our own sovereignty as national interests is their propriety. Also, we're taking away their weapons as an exchange, so they're not a threat to us. In addition, we're taking away their nuke, which minimizes the threat to us from the terrorists. War is a legitimate form of statecraft; if the terrorists become a state then we can legitimately strike against them.
Transformers will also agree because we get hold with the nuclear weapons and these nuclear weapons are being supervised more carefully under an expanded IAEA, and with a higher degree of transparency, everyone can access the information on how many nukes each state holds.
For the matter of who could help with the situation, we think that each worldview can contribute their help in this situation. The maintainers, which is the IAEA or the UN, to the extent that they don't force the nuclear weapon states to give up their weapons and they don't feel like they're giving up too much sovereignty, this is something that the maintainers could compromise. For reformers, it is a win-win situation because multilateral cooperation is achieved and international regimes like the IAEA is expanded and increased in transparency. For transformers, regional organizations or intuitions can be set up to increase stricter control on...