> You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup.

Of course. How is that controversial?

> Who decides that? You?

Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.

> There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange.

You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.

> Of course. How is that controversial?

Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?

> Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.

Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.

> Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example?

Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.