Allow me to elaborate, then. We barely, or, if you will, very narrowly avoided a nuclear exchange that would at worst lead to the extinction of our entire species, and at best set us back to a state we could never expect to recover from.
I take issue with "cunningly concealed argument advocating the enslavement of the human race". No more than a state is an attempt to enslave its citizens. I know there are certain groups where any talk of a "world government" is seen as something sinister, but I happen not to be one of those people. I may be critical of some key parts of organizations like the UN and the EU, but I don't see how we can expect to progress as a species if we can't first set aside our essentially tribal squabbles and differences.
I happen to also think that it's possible to agree on certain situations that would fit the description of an "atrocity". A government carrying out a genocide against a part of its own population would be one of those, and we can take it from there.
It seems you've got a few views in common with people and groups like Alex Jones and the John Birch Society. Now, that's fine, I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying on that basis. It just so happens that I find myself, politically, almost as far from those views as it's possible to get. In other words, what you see as major problems simply aren't problems to me, not in the same way. The fact that Russia, for instance, can prevent the UN from acting as a whole, seemingly for completely selfish ends, that's a problem. Governments, in and of themselves, are not.
And, I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than simply declaring my argument poorly constructed. I'm not going to do your work for you.
When you say the people you need to worry about are the ones who wouldn't use their weapons, I tend to disagree. I'm more worried about suicidal terrorists attacking a major city for no reason other than their faith, their politics or their plain insanity compells them to do it.
Nuclear weapons are funny like that, in that they only work when they're not used. It used to be different, sure, but today using one is tantamount to suicide. You can't use them preemptively, and by the time you need to use them for self defense, you've already lost. Even a limited nuclear exchange would have catastrophic consequences for the world as a whole, and the idea that you can keep a limited nuclear exchange limited is absurd.
As for your final point, it would serve your arguments better to respond to my actual positions. I think I made it clear that the military would not, in any case, disappear overnight. It would be naive, I've already said, to abolish your armed forces and expect everyone else to do the same. But diplomacy works, and it's possible for two states, even ones that are not on very good terms, to negotiate for instance a reduction in their nuclear arsenal. It's possible because it's a situation that everybody benefits from. In an arms race, neither party benefits.