> I am struggling with the alternative. So a dictator can invade any country he wants because otherwise he can say "booh, nuclear apocalypse" and because we can't risk to be anywhere near that, we need to give the dictator whatever he wants? And the invaded country has to swallow it? It's easy to write off other people's freedom.

Yes, that's how it works with nuclear weapons. It's deeply unfair: international bullies can threaten other countries into doing whatever they like, even complete subjugation, just because they are nuclear-armed. Overwhelming power supports overwhelming injustice.

Back when nuclear weapons first became available, many people, famous scientists among them, pointed out the problems with them. And guess what? This is where we are today.

No, that is how nuclear weapons work when you are the only entity with nuclear weapons. There was a deeply scary and unstable period of a years post-WWII where this was the case. Having nukes only makes you god if no one else has nukes (and delivery methods).

Clearly they cannot as the war in Ukraine shows. Russia are losing big time. Do you really think they’ll use nukes if Putin commands it? I highly doubt it. More likely he’ll get a bullet to the head.

Logically then, you should approve of Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons. Because, otherwise, they might leave themselves open to invasion by some 'bully' [mentioning no names].

In fact, let's give every country in the world nuclear weapons. Then no-one will dare to attack anyone else and peace will reign everywhere.

> we need to give the dictator whatever he wants

Not whatever he wants. Some token prize that's big enough that he can protect his own ass domestically, but small enough that a re-run is obviously a bad idea.

The big downside is future dictators realize that nuclear blackmail is a get out of jail free card, which increases future wars and nuclear proliferation.

> So a dictator can invade any country he wants

Let me guess: You live in the US.

For most people in the world, the situation is that the US, and possibly some neighboring regional power, can invade whenever they want; and at best we can offer limited initial resistance and guerilla/terrorist attack once they've occupied.

But "with food comes appetite": The US government has normalized, among its citizens, the presumption of military intervention where and when it likes. That is deplorable. What's worse, though, is that it can stretch the same trick as far as nuclear war. That is, most US'ers seem to be willing to risk the destruction of all humanity because " 'We' can't let the dictator-of-the-day invade this country we don't care about and can probably not even place on a map!"

Let me attack your position by attacking you personally. That was a weak argument but would have been considerably stronger had you just avoided the attack on the poster.