Replacing ground forces with the threat of nuclear attacks on population centers, and that's all the early weapons were good for, was a choice, and choices imply responsibility. Had the US proposed a ban on nukes in 1946 it's likely everybody else would have accepted and we would be on much more solid moral ground when someone decides to start a nuclear weapons programme than we are now. The USA (and if the decision comes from the politicians or the voters is irrelevant) chose not to, and now we have we have to live with the consequences. While the number of warheads has gone down from cold war levels the threat to mankind has far from disappeared, some warhead grade material has "apparently gone missing", the process of destruction of the excess weapons has a lot of risks and costs, and many additional countries have decided to build nukes making greatly increasing the possibility of someone "pressing the button". Another worrisome trend is the loss of prestige of the nuclear forces, especially in the US but quite possibly in Russia as well, this is likely attracting lower quality "human material" to them and smaller maintenance budgets, a very scary trend. The above are "suspicions", as there is still a lot of secrecy around the nuclear forces we do not really know what the status of the nuclear forces is, some reports imply the number of truly operational warheads/delivery systems is a lot smaller than the generally quoted figures, personally I don't see this uncertainty as a good thing as uncertainty leads to fear and fear can lead to very bad decisions, but .... it's just my opinion here.