Although I agree with the first part and agree with your motives for the second part.....The thing is nukes are Deterrents. The guy getting a peace prize for advocating the disarmament of such destructive weapons appears all nice and dandy on the surface but once they are done away with. Countries will be able to conventionally wage war again thus increasing the likelihood of it happening. True this is some economist wet dream but thats only cause he wouldnt actually have to do any fighting.
Think of the death toll and scale of destruction after the first and second world war. No nukes are definitely a hot potato and dangerous to keep around but disarming them means there isnt any unpleasant repercussions for nation states going to war, Sure they could lose but theres nothing like total annihilation to put the idea clean of your mind.
