From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis.
Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time.
To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument.
The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.