I did not mean any written right just that if it is okay for one country to have nuclear weapons then it is okay for every country. There is nothing to justify

I did not mean any written right just that if it is okay for one country to have nuclear weapons then it is okay for every country. There is nothing to justify the position that only a selected group of countries is entitled to poses nuclear weapons. You have a bit of a point with non-proliferation treatise but they essentially mean that countries voluntarily refrain from spreading nuclear weapons. And you sidestepped the question about embargoing the USA by discussing it powerful position. I am only arguing that it would be better foreign policy to, for example, offer a discount on oil for 20 years if the USA dismantles its nuclear weapons as opposed to enforcing an oil embargo until they do so. And party you are saying what I mean, some countries refrain from having nuclear weapons because they got military protection in return which in turn also implies that in some sense possessing nuclear weapons is a good thing. Here the USA is essentially paying for other countries wavering a good thing. Or compare Russia and Iran. The USA is giving something to Russia in return for the reduction of it's nuclear stockpile namely the reduction of its own nuclear stockpile. Iran on the other hand is not as powerful as the USA and company and so they can bully them to achieve similar goals. This looks like abuse of power to me.