I don’t think anything is gained by making up a name Plutonia. I think your model can be vastly simplified by just counting the number of nuclear arsenals with non-dominant political controllership.
[edit to expand a bit]
The underlying thesis seems to be that political units which are powerful and growing create nuclear arsenals, and then much later become weak and non-dominant in their areas, making that nuclear attack capability much riskier, because they have less to lose (and because they don’t see other paths to their former greatness).
I don’t think anything is gained by making up a name Plutonia. I think your model can be vastly simplified by just counting the number of nuclear arsenals with non-dominant political controllership.
[edit to expand a bit]
The underlying thesis seems to be that political units which are powerful and growing create nuclear arsenals, and then much later become weak and non-dominant in their areas, making that nuclear attack capability much riskier, because they have less to lose (and because they don’t see other paths to their former greatness).
Sorry, I didn’t get what do you mean by “non-dominant political controllership”, can you rephrase it?
Yes, absolutely, it is the underlying thesis.