Recently I& #39;ve been thinking how wildly inappropriate the word "proliferation" is when used to describe the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Proliferation implies exponential growth, but nuclear weapons have only been acquired by a mere handful of states -- nine out of a possible 195.

Proliferation is a supposedly a rapid process, but the amount of time for this admitted handful to acquire nuclear weapons has been three quarters of a century. Not exactly breakneck speed, is it?

Wouldn& #39;t a phrase like "nuclear ooze" be more appropriate? Or "nuclear glacial creep"?

And less flippantly, doesn& #39;t the use of a misleading word (like "proliferation") tend to obscure the realities in play and encourage us to fundamentally misjudge the issues at stake?