I'm very, very strongly against nuclear weapons, and I apply it to all countries in the world, not just a few. If one country has nuclear war heads it's inevitable that other countries will try to acquire them as well. If you want to play the blame game you have to start at the beginning.
If it's inevitable, what about the countries that voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons, such as Ukraine?
For someone who is "very, very strongly" against nuclear weapons, you don't seem very upset with the precedent that Russia's violation of the
Budapest Memorandum has set. That's what has changed the rules now.
Before, countries have voluntarily given up nuclear weapons, and voluntarily ended nuclear weapons programs. South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have all rejected nuclear weapons that they had in their possession. Other states never built a weapon, or never tested it (which includes some countries most people wouldn't expect, such as Sweden).
There are countries under the US's protection that are probably at the nuclear threshold and do face threats. Considering that the US has shown it's toothlessness in regards to Ukraine, those countries may be rethinking their nuclear-free position.
So let's stop playing the game of "Oh the US first developed nuclear weapons, blah blah blah" and focus on the actions today. It's unlikely the great powers or the sole hyperpower will give up nuclear weapons. But we can act in a way that discourages proliferation.
If we had remained hunters and gatherers(which you're against) there'd be no nuclear weapons today. If all the powers had come to some agreement or history had gone differently it could have been avoided as well.
Oh goodie, we could have remained hunter and gatherers, and most of us wouldn't have survived until adulthood. Those who did, if male, would have a high chance of dying a violent death, while women's status would likely be worse off. But hey, at least we'd wouldn't have nukes.
