It was not the case that most of the world agreed that some nations could have nuclear weapons while they couldn't. The U.S., Russia, France, Britain, etc., in ratifying this treaty, agreed to disarm. The time-frame for disarmament was not specified unfortunately, but the core of the treaty is that nations without nuclear weapons agree not to develop them if nations with nuclear weapons agree to disarm. Zero movement has been made by the U.S. or other nuclear nations towards this goal.
In the face of aggression from states like Russia and, yes, the U.S.A., there is increasing pressure to view the non-proliferation treaty as broken and no longer binding. This would be a huge loss for the world, and I urge citizens of laggard nuclear powers to put some pressure on their governments to live up to their end of the deal before the deal dies. A world in which non-proliferation is dead and nations of the world are all scrambling for nuclear weapons is not a world in which you will be more secure.
Even if we succeed in managing the impact of AI, nuclear weapons are something the world would be better off without. It's time to demand better from world leaders.
_______________
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
So that's why I think first we need a reduction of overall tensions, and then the political will and public support for disarming can take place?
Is your argument that attrition without replacement just doesn't count or something?