There is none for nukes as it involves the zero sum game of war. Because you'll die if you don't. Russia and Japan were already developing nukes independent of

There is none for nukes as it involves the zero sum game of war. Because you'll die if you don't. Russia and Japan were already developing nukes independent of the US, as the theory for nuclear fission was well known. Logic says to fire immediately if you opponent can't, as eventually you'll lose advantage, a scenario that scared the Soviets to whits end, despite the US not doing so. So you either make your defense or be at the whim of your opponent. Being moral and dead isn't a very good outcome is it? Overall, the history of nukes lends credence to the idea of keeping doors open, to naively and hopefully trying to avoid zero sum games. The US decided against Kyoto to keep Japan postwar. It's willing to go fire the nukes in defense of Japan today. The US didn't annihilate the Soviets post WW2, despite offense. Khrushchev talked an idiot out of nuclear war and a Soviet operator said the sensors were wrong. But it's only something a single side can control, and it's not assured that you won't end up with a cruel or zealous antagonist, who at best will pause to thoughts of their own death, or you need to make pay to have any hope afterwards.