Iraq was non-nuclear, didn't end well.
N.Korea has nukes, treated with kid gloves.
The only use of nukes has been on people thatdidn't have them, and that was twice.
All the above are of course attacks by the USA, which is not exactly likey next week, but over the next 25 years ? Countries have moved from friend to enemy far quicker than that. Hands up those who would cry inconsolably if Geogre Bush died ?
Think that might get mutual one day ?
Most of the money isn't warheads, it is the means to get them there. Some of this is dual use.
For a small fraction (say 5% or a billion) you could build big bombs that don't go anywhere, press a button and the bang destroys the world.
Much more reliable, but politicly difficult.
CND is passe because their basic position was "if the 4th biggest nuclear power disarms, the Soviet Union will be shamed into doing the same". This is easdily the dumbest political position of the last 50 years. Russia had explictly said it targetted non nuclear countries like Austrlia and Iceland, indeed people who plan nuclear war for a living, often had Iceland as the first country to get hit.
Germany, a non nuclear country was generally held to be either #1, or #2 on that list, by some combination of Russia, France and the USA.
Iran will be nucelar armed soon. If you had Iraq, and Russia as neighbours, and Israel down the road, you'd want nukes even if your leader wasn't a religious nutter.
Many countries have noted that Pakistan, India, N. Korea et al have acquired nukes and thus been "promoted" as notable powers and treated with respect.
Around half the countries on the planet have the technical means to build nukes in the next 5 years, they now have the incentive.
Not nice, not even slightly, but in the absence of an anti nuclear defence, having better weapons is the least of the several evils.