There's a timescale problem that you may be overlooking. One part of NATO is a quid pro quo: It's in the interest of the nuclear powers, most of all the US, th

There's a timescale problem that you may be overlooking. One part of NATO is a quid pro quo: It's in the interest of the nuclear powers, most of all the US, that other countries don't build their own nuclear weapons. You might say that US offers an alliance (including nuclear weapons) in exchange for Norway, Finland, Poland, Austria, Italy etc. spending their budgets on non-nuclear weapons. All of those have advanced economies and generally sufficient resources that they could build nuclear weapons, but doing it is a decade-long project. Imagine yourself as the government of Poland. Make a choice about the 2026 defense budget. Start a nuclear bomb project that you think will take ten years, or trust that if Russia invades in 2035 the US will stand by its promises? What do you choose if you feel a tinge of doubt in the trustworthiness of half of the recent US presidents, or in the statements of many leading US politicians? That Vance person may be president in 2035, is he reliable? He spoke the words "drop support for NATO if", he suggested forcing your neighbour to cede territory, will he sacrifice American lives if Russia invades Poland?