The best way to make people get rid of Nuclear bombs is to make them think they don't need them, and we're backsliding on that feeling with more aggression between allies (The US and Europe, Canada, etc) and the recent wars of previously nuclear / hoping to be nuclear states.
Americans and others have a fundamental misunderstanding about the world treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[1]. This is the treaty under which most nations that do not presently have nuclear weapons have agreed not to develop them. Yes, some nations have refused to ratify this treaty and have developed weapons. However, the biggest offenders against this treaty are the nations who have nuclear weapons and haven't made a single step towards the disarmament they agreed to.
It was not the case that most of the world agreed that some nations could have nuclear weapons while they couldn't. The U.S., Russia, France, Britain, etc., in ratifying this treaty, agreed to disarm. The time-frame for disarmament was not specified unfortunately, but the core of the treaty is that nations without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them if nations with nuclear weapons agree to disarm. Zero movement has been made by the U.S. or other nuclear nations towards this goal.
In the face of aggression from states like Russia and, yes, the U.S.A., there is increasing pressure to view the non-proliferation treaty as broken and no longer binding. This would be a huge loss for the world, and I urge citizens of laggard nuclear powers to put some pressure on their governments to live up to their end of the deal before the deal dies. A world in which non-proliferation is dead and nations of the world are all scrambling for nuclear weapons is not a world in which you will be more secure.
Even if we succeed in managing the impact of AI, nuclear weapons are something the world would be better off without. It's time to demand better from world leaders.
Even if we could get all the western signatories to do it, Israel having nuclear weapons in the middle east will continue to inspire regional allies to want some defenses. India is likely to keep them around as well as Pakistan, Iran is going to want to get them soon, I would honestly expect Ukraine to angle for it or at least a nuclear umbrella any chance they can... The pressure and global climate is not moving towards it.
So that's why I think first we need a reduction of overall tensions, and then the political will and public support for disarming can take place?
The U.S. has a lower number of total warheads because precision munitions made some nuclear weapons obsolete. Mainly the smaller tactical nukes which used to comprise the overwhelming majority of the U.S.'s arsenal. No meaningful destructive capability has been sacrificed. There are still far too many city killers laying in bunkers and silos.
It was not the case that most of the world agreed that some nations could have nuclear weapons while they couldn't. The U.S., Russia, France, Britain, etc., in ratifying this treaty, agreed to disarm. The time-frame for disarmament was not specified unfortunately, but the core of the treaty is that nations without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them if nations with nuclear weapons agree to disarm. Zero movement has been made by the U.S. or other nuclear nations towards this goal.
In the face of aggression from states like Russia and, yes, the U.S.A., there is increasing pressure to view the non-proliferation treaty as broken and no longer binding. This would be a huge loss for the world, and I urge citizens of laggard nuclear powers to put some pressure on their governments to live up to their end of the deal before the deal dies. A world in which non-proliferation is dead and nations of the world are all scrambling for nuclear weapons is not a world in which you will be more secure.
Even if we succeed in managing the impact of AI, nuclear weapons are something the world would be better off without. It's time to demand better from world leaders.
_______________
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
So that's why I think first we need a reduction of overall tensions, and then the political will and public support for disarming can take place?
Eliminating nuclear weapons is more feasible than eliminating humanity's capacity to disagree.
Is your argument that attrition without replacement just doesn't count or something?