There is the problem of the less knowledgeable being deceived by a false alarm or ignoring a genuine alarm.
Since the consequences are so enormous for either case, due to competitive dynamics between multiple countries, it still doesn’t seem desirable, or even credible, to entrust this to anything larger then a small group at best.
In the case of extreme time pressure, such as the hypothetical 5 minute warning, trying to coordinate between a small group of hastily assembled non-experts, under the most extreme duress imaginable, will likely increase the probability of both immensely undesirable scenarios. (Assuming they can even be assembled and communicate quickly enough)
On the other hand, this removes the single point of failure, and leaving it to a single individual does have the other downsides you mentioned.
So there may not be a clear answer, if we assume communication speeds are sufficient, leaving it to a political choice.
For another angle with nuclear weapons, if we could somehow teach people so that some people only understood half of building the weapon and other people only understood the other half, it would decrease the odds that a single person would be able to build a nuclear weapon or teach a terrorist organization, even if more people now have some knowledge. Decreasing inequality of nuclear-weapon-knowledge would create a safer society.
Perhaps this might have been feasible before the invention of the internet.
Nowadays, this seems practically impossible, as anyone competent enough to understand building half a weapon will be very likely capable of extrapolating to the full weapon in short order. Also, more than likely capable of bypassing any blocks society may establish to prevent communication between those with complementary knowledge.
Even if it was split 10 ways, the delay may only be a few years to decades until the knowledge is reassembled.
There is the problem of the less knowledgeable being deceived by a false alarm or ignoring a genuine alarm.
Since the consequences are so enormous for either case, due to competitive dynamics between multiple countries, it still doesn’t seem desirable, or even credible, to entrust this to anything larger then a small group at best.
In the case of extreme time pressure, such as the hypothetical 5 minute warning, trying to coordinate between a small group of hastily assembled non-experts, under the most extreme duress imaginable, will likely increase the probability of both immensely undesirable scenarios. (Assuming they can even be assembled and communicate quickly enough)
On the other hand, this removes the single point of failure, and leaving it to a single individual does have the other downsides you mentioned.
So there may not be a clear answer, if we assume communication speeds are sufficient, leaving it to a political choice.
Perhaps this might have been feasible before the invention of the internet.
Nowadays, this seems practically impossible, as anyone competent enough to understand building half a weapon will be very likely capable of extrapolating to the full weapon in short order. Also, more than likely capable of bypassing any blocks society may establish to prevent communication between those with complementary knowledge.
Even if it was split 10 ways, the delay may only be a few years to decades until the knowledge is reassembled.