If democratically-elected government disappears, something will fill that power void, and they will control that arsenal. Who knows what could happen with them.

>"Who knows what could happen with them."

Same as with the democratic government. Dictators are not suicidal. They prefer to be left alone.

Tell the people of Ukraine right now how much Putin wants to be left alone.

I do appreciate your concern about Ukraine but this has nothing to do with Russia being against nuclear proliferation. If it wanted to it would have zero problems seeding those all over the places.

I do appreciate your condescension, but no one said it had to do with something about Russia being for or against proliferation.

they'll fight other countries to deflect from internal problems

Did the collapse of democracy in Russia lead to nuclear war?

It didn't which is great news, but tbh I regard the Russians as more rational than us.

Or you don't know any self-styled "real Americans".

I'm thinking more of their cold war strategizing, but I also ask you, have you ever met an American QAnon enthusiast? ;)

Yes, and they seem to be mostly anti-war.

Average Russian are busy trying to live their lives. They do not wake up and start plotting WW III as a morning exercise.

The ones I know of seem pretty bent on it, especially civil war.

Nothing new. They were fighting other countries all along. Still not suicidal.

The US is a major nuclear power and is one body that actively works to counter-balance nuclear proliferation in the world.

>"is one body that actively works"

Not true. Unless you count invading other countries under false pretenses as one.

If you think Russia is interested in proliferated I have a nice bridge.

[1] "Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction is traditionally a top priority of U.S. foreign policy."

I didn't say anything about Russia.

[1] https://www.nti.org/countries/united-states/

Your post reads as the US is the only one working on NPT. It is not.

As for your reference - US based and owned org is of course totally unbiased. Color me surprised.

I would differentiate "one body" from "the one body" or "the only body." While I didn't explicitly state, "one of many," that was the implied intent.

Another example of similar usage is, "I am one person." This statement does not imply I am the only person. Rather, it eludes to the fact that there are others.

This is just a guess but, while looking through my post and these responses, it appears to me that you are politically charged and might be reading with a heavy confirmation bias. I welcome evidence to the contrary of any of my points. So far, I've only seen conjecture.

>"one of many," that was the implied intent.

Well I've failed to see the implication but this might be my fault as English is not my first language. If you truly meant "one of many" then we have nothing to argue about. Hence no need to label me being as politically charged.

Not quite sure how to answer that if it's not already obvious to you. If democracy collapses, the result will almost certainly be Donald Trump being effectively a dictator. He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration when some checks and balances were still in place [1] [2]. Nothing could stop him if he decided to do it again during his second.

[1] https://gizmodo.com/the-pentagon-worried-trump-was-about-to-...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-t...

>"He very nearly started a nuclear war on more than one occasion during his first administration

The info in the links you've mentioned does not inspire much confidence.